Privacy waiver for SFPD officers nixed

Police officers will not be required to forego their right to privacy when settling disciplinary cases early, the San Francisco Police Department’s civilian oversight body decided Wednesday.

Five of the seven members of the San Francisco Police Commission voted against a resolution that would have required officers facing department discipline to waive their right to confidentiality if they wanted to settle their cases without a full hearing before the commission. However, two of the “no” votes came from commissioners who indicated they would support an amended version of the resolution.

The commission has been grappling with the implications of a California Supreme Court decision, Copley Press v. Superior Court, that came down Aug. 31. The court found that newspapers and the public do not have the right to know the identities of officers involved in department discipline. The resolution to force officers seeking “stipulated dispositions” to waive their right to privacy has been before the commission for about a month.

On Wednesday, just before the resolution went to a vote, Commissioner Theresa Sparks suggested an amendment to the resolution that would make it only apply to cases where officers faced more than 45-day suspensions. However, commission Vice President David Campos, who moved for the vote on the resolution, refused to accept the amendment.

Campos acknowledged that the resolution would likely incur a lawsuit by the police officers’ union, but he indicated that might be welcome.

“If there is a case to be tested in court on the scope of Copley, I feel that, given that Copley does not address stipulated dispositions, that this would be a good case to take to court,” Campos said before the vote.

Only Campos and Commissioner Petra DeJesus supported the resolution. Sparks and Commissioner Joe Veronese voted against it but indicated they would support a version that included Sparks’ amendment.

Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was “disappointed” that the resolution didn’t pass. He urged the commission to revisit the amended version of the resolution as soon as possible.

“It’s important that serious cases … not be settled in backroom deals,” Schlosberg said Thursday.

The commission did pass a resolution by Veronese that urges officers to waive their confidentiality rights and requires the commission to issue a bimonthly report giving findings of disciplinary proceedings before it.

Bay Area NewsLocal

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Recology executives have acknowledged overcharging city ratepayers. (Mira Laing/2017 Special to S.F. Examiner)
Recology to repay customers $95M in overcharged garbage fees, city attorney says

San Francisco’s waste management company, Recology, has agreed to repay its customers… Continue reading

A construction worker watches a load for a crane operator at the site of the future Chinatown Muni station for the Central Subway on Tuesday, March 3, 2021. (Sebastian Miño-Bucheli / Special to the S.F. Examiner)
Major construction on Central Subway to end by March 31

SFMTA board approves renegotiated contract with new deadline, more contractor payments

(Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Settlement clears path for all youth, high school sports to resume in California

John Maffei The San Diego Union-Tribune All youth and high school sports… Continue reading

State to reserve 40 percent of COVID-19 vaccines for hard-hit areas

By Eli Walsh Bay City News Foundation State officials said Thursday that… Continue reading

Neighbors and environmental advocates have found the Ferris wheel in Golden Gate Park noisy and inappropriate for its natural setting. <ins>(</ins>
Golden Gate Park wheel wins extension, but for how long?

Supervisors move to limit contract under City Charter provision requiring two-thirds approval

Most Read