okay. so, any questions so far? sorry. the administrative investigation again is determining whether the use of lethal force was in accordance with the department of policy. our burden of proof in administering the investigation is the preponderance of the evidence. investigative findings, recommendationses are prepared by the investigator in a final report. this will include obviously the criminal information we received. that's part of the reason we trail behind the criminal investigation obviously if there was some criminal misconduct, that would be a factor in the administrative investigation. so, the investigative findings were then presented to the quarterly held firearm discharge review board. you sat through those reports as well. so, you're familiar with that a little bit. okay. some of the investigator dependencies we touched on, again would be the district attorney report and the final homicide report. >> those are the big ones. >> once we have the final product, we've got the administrative report completed. it's presented to a firearms discharge review board which is held every quarter. the firearm discharge review board is authorized in department general order 310 and it's referenced in 81 1. so, both those general orders have some information on how it's conducted and not necessarily -- doesn't jive easily. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> and you might have talked about this, but the significance of the difference between the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt and your proof is preponderance? >> ours is preponderance 51%. >> 51%. >> yeah. we more likely to believe or not believe than to not believe or believe. so, there's different levels that each investigative body has to perform, too, or has to weigh in into making -- in making their final determination. obviously the softest one would be the preponderance of evidence and the most difficult one would be the d.a.. the d.a. has a much higher burden of proof to establish in their case. >> so, your analysis is it's more likely than not that the shooting was in policy or it's more likely than not the shooting was out of policy? >> right, to a degree of 51%. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. the board, per the general orders, the board will review the ois investigative findings to come to a consensus regarding whether the use of lethal force was in policy, not in policy, or whether further investigation is required. and then the chair, which is again will look at the members of it, the d.c. admin will report the findings to the chief. the board is composed of the deputy chief administration who chairses it, the dc of operations, d.c. of special operations, excuse me, and the d.c. of the airport. and advisory members would be the police -- a police commissioner, the director of occ, the commanding officer of risk management, and the sfpd range master. the findings, as i mentioned before, the chief who reviews them. and if he concurses with the finding, the chief will work the recommendation of the fdrb to the police commission. if the chief does not concur, he would forward his own findings to the police commission. the way that is presented to the police commission is in writing. you've seen the fdrb letters. it's letter format, but it's in writing. it summarizes all the different components of the administrative -- administrative investigation, the criminal investigation, the facts as developed in the case. there's some of the forensic evidence that was developed and then how the conclusions were to arrive at that and whatever recommendation would be as a result of the fdrb. there is a presentation of the fbrb findings and there's also a quarterly report for the fdrb and the ois investigation. so, from start to finish, you've got the two processes concurrent. one dependent on the other. the administrative dependent to some degree on the criminal, the criminal dependent on the various things we've looked at. those are wrapped up and sent to the fdrb which begins a review process basically. it's through the command staff to the chief and down the road reported to the police commission. chief? >> thanks, sergeant, that was great. commissioners, any questions? commissioner kingly. >> sergeant krudo, thank you very much for going through all this, your presentation and the written materials made things a lot clearer. a question regarding the return to due pi panel recommendations and that process. * due pi >> yes, ma'am. >> i notice according to dgo 8.1 1, et cetera, that the commission has to meet in closed session before that becomes effective. >> yes, ma'am. * duty >> is it now operating smoothly enough that with our going dark at various times, it's not holding up -- the result? >> i think the chief might be able to answer that, but i would say that, you know, it's kind of the luck of the draw might be a way to put it, you know. we've had officers that have had to wait a couple of weeks after return to duty and found them ready to go back to duty. wait a couple weeks to present that, you know, it happens. that's a part of the process in my opinion. i'm not speaking for the department. gets a little problematic sometimes. we try and liaison with the officers and, you know, the business of the commission, it just creates an inconvenience for the officer, you know, sometimes. but -- >> it hasn't been a problem. the officers realize that it's just a matter of, as the sergeant said, it's the luck of the draw. as long as they don't receive it as some implication that there's something out of the ordinary or there's something regarding their shooting that gives folks pause when they just realize, hey, it's the second wednesday, you happened to get involved in something that falls on the second one now in this case, the third one day of the month. nobody plans on any of these things happening. we had a pretty good year last year and hopefully we'll have another good one this year. >> but an officer could be sitting for two weeks off duty because -- >> i'm sorry, i didn't mean to interrupt you. >> go ahead. >> they were given an administrative assignment. i think this will address it. for the first 10 days you've seen that we keep them pretty busy. there's actually a number of things that they have to do. and they are going through, you know, it's a traumatic instance they've gone through. but the officer is not prohibited from working. so, we've had officers that are on the cit team. and they were able to do some follow-up, you know, in-house things, some of the choreseses that they normally when they're running around answering calls and doing what they do in the normal routine, they're not able to get to. they're able to complete? some of their chores they can do in that administrative capacity. * >> thank you, sergeant novack. that make it perfectly clear. just backing up on one question regarding the flow of information. there is a concurrence and process between the criminal investigation and the administrative investigation. can the officers who are involved in the administrative investigation ask questions of and get information that way from the d.a.'s office and homicide detail? >> yes. >> yes. we have a great cooperative relationship with the homicide detail. they understand the process as well as we do. they're very forthcoming on the information. same with the medical examiner. i mean, all the different parties are very cooperative, the d.a.. >> that all can flow at the same time. we don't have to wait until they have reached a particular point of conclusion? >> for us to -- [multiple voices] >> no, ma'am. we can ask through the process and they understand it. but we do, we do have to wait for them to come to their recommendation or conclusions, you know, before we can act upon them, too. so, at any point, for example, the medical examiner, right, needs to establish the cause of death and whatever else, you know, toxicology and things like that. and while they may make some preliminary assessment until they have the formal findings, that thing is really set. nothing can be forwarded and fully acted upon and moved forward a completed. >> okay. >> thank you, commissioner loft us. >> thank you, sergeant krudo. i have one question, may not be readily available. do you have a sense for us on the statistics of how often shootings are most recently in the last couple years how often they're found out of policy? >> how often they're found out of policy? i would say that by far extreme we're using force, lethal force correctly. it's a very small percentage that's out of policy. often it's more related to -- often you'll see the accidental, accidental discharge. you know, we investigate, i should point out we investigate something that's self-inflicted, we would investigate that. >> someone shoots themselves in the foot? >> yes, ma'am. >> that would be out of policy? >> yes, whether intentional or accidental, if they shoot themselves, we would investigate those. those would be out of policy. but it's a small percentage, which is probably across the nation it's the standard that it's a large percentage where it's correctly applied. >> okay. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you, sergeant krudo, for this presentation, how you put a lot of work in it, appreciate it. especially for coming back two wednesday nights in a row, thank you for that, too. i wanted to ask you a couple questions. one is -- this will give the public a little background why we're having this presentation. i wanted to find out for the return to duty panel what documents and types of information is reviewed by the panel? the reason i'm asking this is we've had some questions in the past when we asked questions of the chief during the return to duty presentation and then sometimes the city attorney will caution us not to ask certain questions. and the reason why, it was explained to me and i got it, is that the powerpoint that is shown to us isn't necessarily what the chief saw and was basing his decision on when he approved or disapproved of the return to duty panel's recommendations. and that's part of why when we ask questions related to the powerpoint and not really to what the chief looked at, we're not doing things the right way. so, a part of this presentation was to figure out what does the panel look at and what is given to the chief versus what we see so that we are asking the right questions and we know the zone of questions to ask when we're given those powerpoint presentations so it's not the confusing thing to us. >> really, the powerpoint forms the basis of documents that are in there. again, the order -- 81 1 says the purpose is to determine whether it is appropriate to return the officer to duty. but it is avenue obviously very early in the investigation. so, the facts that are presented at that case or a return to duty by the homicide investigator are preliminary -- it's based on preliminary information, preliminary information obtained on original interviews. but obviously they don't have all the analysis and return shall but there is some preliminary sense of, you know, what happened, how it happened and that sort of overviewed. okay. and really there is a review of whether or not the officer has handled the debriefings and there's, you know, if there is a discussion of whether there is any sense that there is some , some issue that has been raised in any of these components that would indicate that the officer is not ready to go back to duty at this time. the g.o. says there is the option of assigning the officer, if it is believed the officer -- there is something that would preclude the officer from returning to duty, there is the option of assigning the officer administratively nonpunitively. so, they can be sent to an administrative assignment if they are determined not ready. but it would be considered nonpunitive in the order. >> and, so, it seems like the powerpoint is, then, based on information that the return to duty panel discusses and forwards to the chief so the powerpoint is an accurate lee flexor it's not? >> no, the powerpoint is -- the powerpoint is a condensed summary. it is an overview of just the -- it's kind of the real brief snapshot of this is what happened. the officer responded to a robbery and, you know, if there is additional information that's been developed, established, this is what happened. by that point usually the interview has been conducted. like i said, but the folks -- you've seen -- there is a report that summarizes. it's a short summary report of the fdrb. that summarizes the presentation and the information that's given in the fdr -- in the return to duty. >> i guess the easiest way if the city attorney were to explain it is that presentations here is not anything to do with the fdrb. it is a summary of what i based my decision on to put the officer back to duty and what's presented here is a review that given that summary it was my performance is the chief correct in putting the officer back to duty. the decision is mine to put them back to duty and the commission reviews, since you hire and fire me, if you think i'm making bad decisions, then you exercise your prerogative. >> that's correct. : city attorney is not here tonight, for the record. she is suffering from the flu that a lot of folks had last week. and she did talk to me this morning. our role as commissioners is to, as the chief said, to review the chief's performance in returning the officer to duty. we aloe seeksvly do not have the final say as to whether or not the officer is returned to duty. * essentially for the record, i've been told that during these meetings, the chief asks a lot of questions about the officer. he [speaker not understood] a very thorough checking the condition of how the officer is and other outside influences which may have led up to this. i hadxctiontionv it's pretty thorough, probably more thorough than what happened throughout the investigation. >> i also think it's important that there is not an officer involved shooting that i don't go to. so, i'm physically at all the officer-involved shootings. >> so, it looks like it's parallel that the initial 10-day investigation and looking into the well-being of the officer so they can return to duty, not pot is issues, or whether it was in policy and likewise when the commission is hearing about your decision to return that person to duty, it's not about the actual incident or logistics or what happened, but the investigation is about your decision to put the person back to work and that is the scope of the questions? >> exactly. >> got it. >> i understand that piece that is reviewed, the chief performance. but what i think was not clear is what the chief is basing it on and that's related to the return to duty panel which occurs before the fire discharge review board. i understand they meet quarterly, the panel meets after the ois. so, it is just get thattion clarity. so, it seems like the answer to that is the original interviews. the original interviews are -- who are they with? >> homicide. i can't think of an instance where an administrative investigation would be done in that time frame. it may have happened, but i'm not aware of it. >> the interviews are done by homicide, who are they interviewing? >> the officer -- >> if i could go back. so, the summary is what i base my decision on. so, when you get into all the fineries of what goes into the summary, that's what the review board and all -- when we come here, the summary for clarification, the powerpoint that they're prepared, those are more as a courtesy to the commission. so, unless you have a question as to the veracity of the summary, we're just telling you, i base my decision, i've reviewed the summary. that's accurate. this is what i base my decision on. and we arrived at the summary [inaudible]. >> sorry. the return to duty panel makes a recommendation to the chief just like the fdrb makes a recommendation to the chief. the chief has, has been briefed, is present at the ois. the return to duty is the panel -- you've got the slide that has the numbers. >> i don't see the chief on here. it looks like from my understanding, return to review panel composition has of course numbers of -- the people who report to the chief, i don't see the chief listed on here. >> the chief is not in the return to duty panel. so, the chief is concurring with the recommendation of the panel or not. >> or not. >> or not. and the chief, the chief has access, obviously, to the full breadth of information that is available to make the decision. >> thank you. i also wanted to ask about the occ, i see it and a part of it says there is a formal complaint filed with the occ, they do a certain kind of investigation. what happens if a complaint is not filed? this could probably go to director hicks. >> yes, commissioner chan, the occ does not investigate unless the occ receives a civilian complaint of misconduct. so, while we roll out to all officer-involved shootings, we don't necessarily investigate all officer involved shootings. it would be only if a civilian files a complaint. >> that's helpful. wanted to also ask about the [speaker not understood]. when do those investigations get triggered? what's the process for that? >> it may be, for example, trying to think of -- the one that leaps to mind would be when the doj, the department of justice was involved when the d.a. recused himself of a couple. so, there are circumstances where they may, they may get involved or step in. or, for example, we had a postal inspector that was involved in the ois in the same county. but [speaker not understood], that's simply where there may be a jurisdictional issue. >> and i can jump in, my fellow commissioner. if there is an issue of the conflict, the importance of the independence of the investigation. so, if there is a suggestion there is conflict within the d.a., the department of justice in the state can investigate except for budget cuts. it still is more difficult and they tend to do it in smaller police departments that don't have any ability to do that themselves, so. >> one more question. similar to the question officer loft us asked about, whether they're out of policy finding have been for the d.a., do you know just in recent history have they ever charged for an ois -- * >> charge an officer? >> um-hm. >> not -- just having reviewed like the last 10 years recently, certainly not in the last 10 years. i'm not offhand aware of a case where there's been a criminal charge. not in my memory. >> not mine either. okay. and then with the firearm discharge review board, you included a list of the composition of that board. and i wanted to ask if there's any changes in that composition. i remember a couple months ago we did talk with the chief, some of us, about including someone from training and potentially from tactics. i wondered if that is in here. >> this reflects the current structure. so, there haven't been any changes. this varies a little bit from the general order because it reflects the change in the department command structure so the general order is a little kind of off, it's a little behind the times a little bit in that regard specifically. but as far as anyone else that we'd like to add, this reflects the current structure. >> i do believe someone from the academy has been at the last couple fdrbs. >> yes. and also, the range master is part of the academy in training. >> right. >> but the way you listed it, this is based off of what the dgo requires, correct? >> yes. >> okay, that's good to know. the reason i ask that is that sometimes for thing they might not be out of policy, but it might be recommendation for further training or a change in tactics and in policy. having someone in these meetings so they can identify that need. okay. and then lastly wanted to ask about the behavioral science critical incident. and this might be -- this might be for that unit, but i know that president ma zzucco and myself have been focused on that issue and giving officers as much support as possible. * we had asked for a change where there's more services provided, more mandatory briefings. i wanted to ask how that's been going and maybe that's a different presentation. >> there is mandatory debrief after every shooting. officers are afforded additional things through their health care plan should they need counseling. the behavioral science unit follows up on top of that. frankly, we were fortunate in that we didn't have an ois in the last quarter and much of which you're discussing happened after that unfortunate last year a low year all the way around for ois, although we had 16 for the entire year. >> i'd like to follow-up on that. one of the questions, we had a presentation about the officer's well-being is that they further mandatory briefing thereafter. the ptsd, posttraumatic stress syndrome doesn't kick into place until about 90 days afterwards. so there was a request the 90 day remark around there, there was a follow-up with our mental health professionals in the department. so, i think that that was instituted. i just want to make sure. >> yeah, it was, but again in the last 100 something days we haven't had one. >> are bsu folks have followed up with the last couple of officers. i know they follow-up every 36 -- there's a follow-up days and weeks after with the officer. they're checking. and also we're integrating -- we've integrated some of this -- some of what bsu does with regard to posttraumatic stress is going to be a natural consequence of a lethal force encounter. it is a -- but posttraumatic stress injury or posttraumatic express disorder is an injury that after about 90 days, if you're retaining some of the symptoms, that may be a sign there is something more than simply posttraumatic stress. what's great is we have a class for supervisors on officer involved shootings and we have the behavioral science unit folks come out and they have a block in there and they talk about recognizing the stress -- the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. it's a block of instruction for the supervisors. so, we're making sure that the field supervisor who is keeping an eye on this officer kind of understands what to look for and what to do in the event they see there is something else going on. >> great. >> also we do have dr. martin coming out this month to talk to the officers about emotional survival 3 sessions, one at the airport and one up here in the city. >> great. well, sergeant krudo, thank you very much. it was a great presentation and i appreciate all the hard work and effort that went into it. thank you. >> thank you. >> and then the final piece of the presentation, that is budget presentation overview by director maureen gannon and her able number 2 carolyn we will shall. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm maureen gannon. i've been with the department since june of 2012, but with the city for several years, 15 years. so, it's a pleasure to work in the department. and i hope to meet with you individually as the need arises. so, tonight carolyn and i are just going to go over kind of a budget overview at a relatively high level. our sworn hiring plan so you know how we're doing on that. a recivilianization or recivilianization effort, the new building, the public safety building, our technology initiatives that we're seeking funding for and other capital improvement projects and vehicles which is the major push for our budget this year. as you may recall, last year we presented and the board voted on a two-year budget. so, that's our budget is pretty much set.

Related Keywords

,