Local

[Print]  [Email]        

Patrol specials face disciplinary measures

By: Tamara Barak Aparton
Examiner Staff Writer
July 6, 2009

Private practice: While most of the private patrols have complied with the Police Commission’s requirement to change uniforms, many are keeping client lists private. (Examiner file photo)

SAN FRANCISCO — The majority of San Francisco’s 161-year-old private patrol unit will face discipline after refusing to hand over their client lists to The City’s police department.

Fed up with resistance from many of the approximately 35 patrol specials, police commissioners laid down the law last month and said the officers must follow the interim governing rules that went into effect Jan. 31, or face consequences that could include losing their jobs.

Patrol specials, armed officers sanctioned by the city charter and hired by merchants and neighborhood associations, were ordered to wear their light blue-accented uniform, which differentiate them from sworn police officers, and to hand over to police a list of clients on their beats, as well as how much the clients pay for service.

While all but a handful of patrol specials are now complying with the uniform requirements, there have been only a few who have turned over their client lists, said Police Commission President Theresa Sparks. The non-compliant officers will be sent letters this week telling them they’re out of compliance and that disciplinary action may follow. Meanwhile, the patrol specials have retained an attorney.

“I still believe the fundamental problem is the patrol specials still have not acknowledged the commission is the legal body regulating them,” Sparks said. “There is a set of rules in place and we expect full compliance immediately.”

The power struggle is the latest in a feud between the patrol specials and the San Francisco Police Department that has simmered for years. Some police officers have criticized patrol specials for donning similar uniforms without the same training, while some patrol specials have claimed they’ve faced resentment by police officers for eating up potential police overtime hours or infringing on or competing with cop-owned security firms.

Officer Jane Warner, president of the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers Association, said she and her colleagues aren’t being contrary — they’re just protecting the confidentiality of their clients.

“We feel we have certain obligations to our clients that are not being respected,” Warner said, adding that she has offered to have a sit-down with Sparks and disclose her client information if there was assurance that others could not access the sensitive financial
information.

Patrol specials have received no training on the new rules and had little say in their implementation, Warner said.

“The input we submitted was ignored. We feel like we’ve had no voice in this process,” she said.

Commissioners met with patrol specials dozens of times, according to Sparks.

“I don’t think it’s reasonable for Jane Warner or any patrol specials to require the regulating agency do anything. These rules are being legally enforced, they’re in place, and we expect them to comply,” Sparks said.

Patrol specials history

1847: Formed by merchants to combat the insurgence of Barbary Coast outlaws

1935: Incorporated into The City’s charter

2008: Police commission approves interim rules to govern patrol specials, including uniforms that differentiate them from sworn SFPD officers

2009: New rules implemented; patrol specials ordered to comply

Source: SFPD, San Francisco Patrol Specials

tbarak@sfexaminer.com



To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines



 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

SFnative

Jul 6, 2009

The solution is simple the patrol specials can volunteer to separate them selves from the police department to break any bond between them. If they don't want to comply with the rules set for them.

Most of them prefer the ability to claim they are connected to the police department, it helps them sell their services. This is clearly a double edge sword for the ones that do comply.

 

ConcernedTaxpayer

Jul 6, 2009

Has anyone researched the private security force of the SFPD? The SFPD's private security force known as 10-B. These issues with the Patrol Specials has gone on for years and it is time someone takes a look at the real issue here. Every city is facing tough economic times and the city of San Francisco taxpayers don't realize what the 10-B program is costing them. Patrol Specials are free to the city with no tax consequences to the taxpayers of the city. It seems negligent to me as a taxpayer that our city does not take full advantage of their services.

 

SFnative

Jul 6, 2009

Patrol specials are not free, someone pays them and that would be their clients just like 10-B that is paid by companies like construction companies or movie companies so the tax payers are not paying a cent. Lets not cloud the real motivation behind patrol specials is money just like they blame the real police for. I for one am not going to accept liability and neither should the city for these non trained guards. I would gladly pay for a real police officer if I needed one.

 

sfcopper

Jul 6, 2009

ConcernedTaxpayer is 100% WRONG! 10B does not cost the city anything, it actually makes the city money. Private entities pay to have a sworn officer patrol their business district, or direct traffic at a construction area. They pay above and beyond the cost of the officer and the city pockets the rest. Win/Win for the city and officers. It puts more officers on the street at no cost to the city and the officers can make some extra cash to live in the most expensive area in the country.

 

ConcernedTaxpayer

Jul 7, 2009

SFnative and SFcopper are right this is all about money: the money the city and 10B aren't getting as a result of the Patrol Specials. Let the true reason for this controversy come to light. Do you think if the 2 entities weren't in direct competition for jobs this issue would even be discussed? No one said Patrol Specials were free. They don't cost the taxpayer or the city any money to operate. From what I understand they also carry their own liability insurance: making that a non-issue for the city as well. Seems rational to me that the city should utilize a service that makes the city safer to the general public and isn't costing them any additional money to do so.
Aren't 10B officers receiving overtime to work jobs? Doesn't that cost me as a taxpayer more money?

 

SFNative60 years

Jul 7, 2009

I remember the patrol specials when I was a kid patroling my neighborhood every night, 7 days a week, walking our alleyways, behind our homes, checking doors, making sure all is safe. These officers have been a true tradition in SF for many years, they are what community policing is all about, and we need more of them in all neighborhoods.

 

RetiredPoliceOfficersupportsPatrolSpecials!

Aug 18, 2009

Patrol Specials are the best deal we have in public safety! More cops on the streets and doesn't cost the city a cent!

SFPD should not be working double shifts anyway. Being a police officer is hard enough for 40 hours a week. Let the Patrol Specials help with crime prevention and give them back their limited police officer powers.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Display Name:

Comment:




Local

Strike outside Grand Hyatt, Newsom gets involved

Hotel workers in San Francisco are continuing to picket... Full story

Entertainment

Blackbird boasts fun, classic cocktails

A long list of stunning and proper classic cocktails,... Full story

Sports

Cal QB looking to erase bad memory against Beavers

Two years after his fourth-quarter mistake against Oregon State cost California a shot at becoming the top-ranked team in the nation, Kevin Riley can't escape the images of his blunder. Full story