This was done to establish better practices for deputy sheriffs for when and what manner of force is authorized in the performance of their duties. In his statement to the press on Dec. 31 Mirkarimi said, “In this country, the Use of Force policies of most law enforcement agencies reflect a larger narrative borne out of a criminal justice system that monitors, arrests, prosecutes and incarcerates predominantly poor people and people of color.”
Mirkarimi went on to say, “The erosion of trust between law enforcement and community is fed by the perception of impunity when allegations of police abuse are justified by policy and procedure As we close 2015, tensions are playing themselves out on the streets of America, including San Francisco; without any tangible change until another incident grabs our attention and renews calls for reform. Similarly, there is more than enough reason to revise how Use of Force policies are applied inside this nation’s prisons and jails.”
And so, this reporter asked if there was any recent incident in mind that stood out that urged Mirkarimi to seek reforms.
“These reforms are not reactive to any one incident,” he responded. “The process to vet these reforms endured for more than one year. And yet, it couldn’t come at a better time considering how riveted we all are to the persistent friction resulting from how law enforcement patrols the streets of America and communities of color. My belief is that peace officers who work inside the corrections system in this country, prisons and jails, are not excused from this national conversation which gives purpose to my administration in proposing significant changes to our Use of Force policies.”
I mentioned to the Sheriff that San Francisco has in place a “community-based” policing model. Why has friction and discord occurred if this police-community relations type of approach has been in effect?
“Community-based policing in San Francisco has made very little progress as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “Going back before I was elected District 5 Supervisor, (to the early 1990s and even before then) I’ve been a long time proponent of true community policing. Something that was resisted by the SFPD and its union. Basic features such as foot patrols have been missing or reactive at best. It seemed that certain neighborhoods would benefit more than others. This is why I’ve offered that we train our deputy sheriffs to also participate and help complement the SFPD when it comes to enacting accountable community-based policing.”
With over a dozen reforms, some of Mirkarimi’s proposed ideas are practical and seem feasible. In the proposed reforms “de-escalation techniques” are mentioned. So I inquired. What are some of those techniques? Have they been used before? And, if so what is the effective rate of those techniques?
“As an example,” he said, “Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) has been budgeted for the SFPD but not the Sheriff’s Department. The Mayor (Mayor Ed Lee) needs to upgrade his priorities. Our deputies and public health staff and reentry staff warrant CIT training for ways to deescalate matters when encountering a client/inmate who is volatile or psychotic.”
Mirkarimi then noted that, “On the streets, it’s about not resorting to hurtful or lethal response. But learning new techniques and team work to neutralize the threat without injury to themselves or staff.” This sounds feasible enough. Yet, will the various departments and official channels of City and County government of San Francisco agree? Budget cuts or shortfalls are always the reason cited when new ideas, procedures or needs are presented.
The San Francisco Examiner reported on Jan. 5 that Mayor Ed Lee is requesting that all City Departments find ways to cut costs. The City faces a $100 million budget deficit over the next fiscal year.
Reading a bit closer I asked. In the proposed reforms there is mention of “sworn in” and “civilian staff.” Does a “sworn in” staff member have more responsibility over a civilian? And, if so, would a sworn in member be held more accountable than just a regular civilian staff worker?
Mirkarimi replied. “Sworn staff have more responsibility as it regards their certification to apply use of force techniques and in the usage of weapons. All employees have a direct responsibility to report excessive use of force or violations of Use of Force policies.”
I was curious to know in proposing to add more staff with what seems to be an effort to have more “checks and balances” in place; wouldn’t that create more bureaucracy? Does this reform effort take that into account? While Mirkarimi did not answer that directly. The Sheriff’s public information office noted. The proposed reforms regarding use of force were developed with the assistance of law enforcement and use of force reform experts, including Jeffrey A. Schwartz, PhD, a California-based corrections expert.
He was assisted by senior staff attorneys at the Northern California ACLU and at the Prison Law Office in Berkeley. The purpose of the proposed overhaul is to set an integrity-apparent tone for the department at a time of a profound national crisis of public faith in law enforcement. Once implemented, Sheriff Mirkarimi’s intent is that the draft policy becomes the prevailing UOF Policy for the department; any other departmental force option policy would be governed by the updated UOF Policy until such time as the conflicting policy is amended.
“I can attest that the new policy is comprehensive and one of the most progressive jail use of force policies in the country,” said Dr. Schwartz. In his statement to the press he said, “As someone who works with use of force policies and issues in jails across the United States, (this effort at forming a new policy) appropriately emphasizes professionalism and ethical behavior and is consistent with the mission and goals of the department.”
In maintaining an emphasis on service to the community and taking into consideration various circumstances of the human condition, precautions are included to ensure humane treatment.
Mirkarimi’s office noted the proposed policy — which reiterates the SFSD’s commitment to the sanctity and preservation of life, human rights, and the dignity of every person — provides comprehensive direction in areas where the current UOF Policy is silent or inadequate.
For example, the draft policy forbids members of the department who are involved in lead-ups to planned use of force incidents from taking part in those operations. It also seeks to decrease the number of use of force incidents by incorporating department-wide training in the areas of mental health and crisis intervention, and it implements an “early warning” system to identify personnel who are at high risk for use of force incidents so that the department can intervene with non-disciplinary remedial action — potentially staving off unnecessary use of force situations.
While Mirkarimi is confident his proposed policy reforms regarding UOF will be considered and implemented, it remains subject to the SFSD’s meet and confer process with the deputy unions. To learn more about SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s proposed reforms visit the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department web page.
