2026-10-08 - Police Oversight Commission

00:42All righty. I hereby call the Police

00:44Oversight Commission meeting to order on

00:45Thursday, October 8, 2026 at 5:03 p.m.

00:50Madam Secretary, please conduct roll

00:52call.

00:55>> Commissioner Gansonsky.

00:56>> Yes. Here. Commissioner Perea

01:00>> here.

01:01>> Commissioner say

01:03>> here. Thank you.

01:04>> Commissioner Vega

01:06>> here.

01:07>> Vice Chair Gas Lton

01:09>> here.

01:11>> Chair Carpenter

01:12>> here.

01:17>> Record show we have five members

01:19present. Chair, you have a quorum.

01:23>> Six.

01:24>> Six present. Oh, I'm sorry. You have six

01:26present.

01:26>> Correct. You forgot me again, huh?

01:31>> Thank you. Next on the agenda, we have

01:33the pledge of allegiance. Will you

01:35please rise for the pledge of

01:36allegiance? Thank you

01:46to the republic

01:49nationis.

01:58>> All righty. Next we have the public

02:00comment section. This is time for the

02:01commission to receive comments from the

02:03public. We will not accept any

02:04additional requests for speaker cards

02:06once we begin the public comment se

02:08session. If you have not already, please

02:11submit your requests to the recording

02:13secretary. Speakers will have three

02:14minutes to speak. Madam Secretary, do we

02:17have any public speakers?

02:19>> No inerson speakers at this time. There

02:21are none.

02:29>> All righty. Thank you. Next is consent

02:31calendar items one and two. Is there a

02:33motion to approve the consent calendar?

02:37>> Yes.

02:38>> Do I have a second?

02:39>> Second.

02:41>> Thank you. Madam Secretary, please

02:43conduct the roll call.

02:46>> What was the second? Who was second?

02:50>> Gonsky.

02:50>> Roll call again.

02:52>> No, ma'am. She was asking who the second

02:54was. I said it was you.

02:55>> One more time.

02:56>> Commissioner Gansky seconded it.

02:57Correct.

02:58>> Oh, I beg your pardon. Thank you. Motion

03:00by Commissioner Say, seconded by

03:02Commissioner Gansonsky to items numbers

03:05uh one through two of the consent

03:07calendar. U Commissioner Gansonsky,

03:11>> yes.

03:12>> Commissioner Pereira,

03:14>> yes.

03:15>> Commissioner Say,

03:17>> yes. Thank you.

03:18>> Commissioner Vega,

03:20>> yes.

03:21>> Vice Chair Casill Lton,

03:23>> yes.

03:24>> Chair Carpenter,

03:25>> yes. Okay, the vote is six eyes,

03:31zero nays, and one absent. Mia,

03:35>> thank you.

03:35>> Motion carries.

03:37>> All righty. That's the end of the

03:38consent calendar. Now we will recess

03:41this portion of the meeting to consider

03:43items number three listed on the

03:44business calendar at 5:06 p.m.

10:51I know right.

50:18expected to see you there.

50:59There we go.

51:46Oh,

52:12I was going to say you

52:15get you cold.

52:23Watch out.

52:29understand.

52:41>> Oh, I know.

56:06All righty.

56:12I hereby reconvene the police oversight

56:14commission meeting to order at 5:59 p.m.

56:20Assistant city attorney, do you have

56:21anything to report out of close session?

56:52Thank you.

56:54Next on the agenda is the business

56:55calendar. Item number four pertains to

56:57the annual report fiscal year 2025 to

57:002026.

57:03Annual report fisc recommend I approve

57:05and receive and file. Um are there any

57:08questions or comments by the commission?

57:12This is the report we reviewed last

57:14time. Any

57:18questions? Any comments?

57:21Oh,

57:24>> Commissioner Purr,

57:26>> no one else has comments.

57:27>> No, sir. Go ahead.

57:29>> Oh,

57:33>> yeah. I lost my train of thought.

57:54The only two changes were the addition

57:56of those two charts. Correct.

57:59>> That's correct. There have been two

58:01exhibits added to the requested

58:04information.

58:05>> Great. Thank you.

58:07Where's your prayer?

58:10>> Yes. Thank you, Chair Carpenter. Other

58:11than thank you, Director Morris, for

58:13including the uh uh the suggestions of

58:15the that we had added. And so I'm I'm

58:17happy with this report.

58:20Thank you.

58:22Any other questions, comments?

58:27All righty then.

58:30Uh, can I get a motion to approve?

58:33>> I'll make a motion.

58:36>> Can we get a second?

58:36>> I'll second.

58:38>> Thank you.

58:40>> Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll

58:43call vote. [laughter]

58:56Motion by commissioner uh commission

58:58vice chair Casio L seconded by

59:01commissioner commissioner say to approve

59:03the annual

59:06report fiscal year 20252026

59:11commissioner Gansonsky.

59:12>> Yes. Yes.

59:16It is on.

59:17>> Oh, it is on.

59:18>> Yes.

59:19>> Sorry.

59:19>> Commissioner Mia,

59:21>> yes.

59:21>> Commissioner Pereira,

59:23>> yes.

59:24>> Commissioner say,

59:25>> yes. Thank you.

59:27>> Commissioner Vega,

59:28>> yes.

59:29>> Vice Chair Castill Lton,

59:31>> yes.

59:32>> Okay. Uh, Chair Carpenter,

59:34>> yes.

59:34>> Okay. The vote is seven I zero. Uh,

59:39motion carries.

59:41>> Thank you.

59:42Next on the agenda is the business

59:43calendar item number five pertains to

59:45the Sana Police Department policy 311

59:48search and seizure seizure. May we have

59:50a staff presentation.

1:00:08>> Good evening, commissioners. Am I on?

1:00:10No.

1:00:11I was on. Okay.

1:00:14[sighs]

1:00:15Good to see you again. Tonight we have a

1:00:18presentation on policy 311, search and

1:00:20seizure.

1:00:27As soon as I get my clicker working,

1:00:29standby. Oh, got to turn on.

1:00:33Okay.

1:00:35In terms of an agenda for tonight, I'll

1:00:38provide you with a little bit of

1:00:39background.

1:00:40We'll go over the applicable law

1:00:42regarding search and seizure, both

1:00:44federal and state. The focus tonight

1:00:47will be on searches that officers may

1:00:50routinely conduct when they are out on

1:00:53patrol. I'm going to exclude aerial

1:00:56searches, issues related to ALPRs,

1:00:59uh, social media searches, and warrants.

1:01:02I think those topics are best covered in

1:01:04other policies. In fact, SABD has a

1:01:07completely separate policy on warrants.

1:01:10And for issues like aerial surveillance

1:01:12or or searches, I think that that's best

1:01:15addressed in policies more applicable to

1:01:17that subject matter, such as the the

1:01:19drone policy.

1:01:22So, after a discussion of the law, I'll

1:01:24go over the specifics of policy 311, and

1:01:28then I'll end with some observations and

1:01:31suggestions.

1:01:33So, by way of a brief background, on

1:01:36March 12th of 2026, the commissioners

1:01:39voted to place policy 311 on a future

1:01:43agenda for a work study. And that's why

1:01:46we are here tonight. Policy 311 provides

1:01:49guidance regarding how and when officers

1:01:51may conduct searches when on duty. The

1:01:54current version is dated May 26 of 2026.

1:01:57That's the version that's available

1:01:58online and that's the version that I

1:02:00reviewed for tonight's discussion

1:02:04in terms of an overview of relevant law.

1:02:08So all this boils down to the fourth

1:02:10amendment. The amendment is there on the

1:02:12screen for you. I'm not going to read

1:02:14it. Instead, I'm just going to summarize

1:02:15it by saying that the fourth amendment

1:02:18protects people from unreasonable

1:02:19searches and seizures by the government.

1:02:22Now the California constitution says

1:02:24something similar in article 1 section

1:02:2613. So generally according to state and

1:02:30federal uh constitutions

1:02:33police need a warrant to conduct a

1:02:36search. However there are bunches a

1:02:38bunch of exceptions to that rule as we

1:02:41will see.

1:02:44So both state and federal law has

1:02:46created exceptions that allow officers

1:02:47to conduct searches without a warrant.

1:02:50The exceptions may differ depending on

1:02:52whether not the officer is searching a

1:02:56person, a premises or an automobile.

1:02:59Some exceptions may apply across all

1:03:02categories. For example, consent to

1:03:04search. A person can consent to search

1:03:07their own person or their property or

1:03:09their auto.

1:03:11This law is expansive and evolving. So,

1:03:16we'll go over an example of an a

1:03:19possible evolution in search and seizure

1:03:21law. This is a case Elijah Porter versus

1:03:24United States that is currently pending

1:03:26review by the Supreme Court. Now, the

1:03:29Supreme Court has not taken up this case

1:03:31yet. So, we don't know how this may play

1:03:33out, but just by way of a brief

1:03:36background, this case in involves a

1:03:39subject whose car was flagged uh through

1:03:42the ALPR system and the subject has a

1:03:46had an arrest warrant out for for his

1:03:49arrest. Officers pulled over the car and

1:03:52discovered uh an illegal firearm within

1:03:54the car. The person was was arrested,

1:03:57prosecuted. The subject is is

1:04:00challenging that arrest and and

1:04:02prosecution and arguing that searching a

1:04:06database that can reconstruct some

1:04:08someone's movements through the ALPR

1:04:11system is substantially more intrusive

1:04:13than just observing someone's automobile

1:04:16out in public on a single occasion. So

1:04:19the pliff is arguing that a warrant

1:04:22would be needed for that type of search

1:04:24because the pliff argues they have a

1:04:26reasonable expectation of privacy that

1:04:28was violated. Again, Supreme Court has

1:04:31not taken up this case yet. This is just

1:04:33an example of how this type of law can

1:04:36change. This stuff is evolving as uh as

1:04:41uh police increase their their their use

1:04:43of drones and as you know ALPRs are are

1:04:46are prevalent. So,

1:04:50some of those issues are still playing

1:04:52out in the court systems.

1:04:54Couple of key terms that I'll go over

1:04:56that you'll see tonight. First of all,

1:04:58reasonable suspicion

1:05:00indicates specific facts and reasonable

1:05:03inferences supporting suspected criminal

1:05:06activity.

1:05:08I will distinguish that from probable

1:05:09cause to search, which indicates that

1:05:11there is a fair probability that

1:05:13evidence or contraband will be found in

1:05:15the place to be searched. And then we'll

1:05:18also talk about exit circumstances. This

1:05:20refers to an emergency situation

1:05:22requiring swift action to prevent

1:05:25imminent danger to uh life, serious

1:05:27damage to property, escape of a suspect,

1:05:30or the destruction of evidence.

1:05:35So, first of all, I'll start talking

1:05:36about searches of persons.

1:05:40So, there's a list of situations when an

1:05:42officer does not need a warrant to

1:05:44search a person. First on the list,

1:05:47voluntary consent. If an officer stops

1:05:50you in the street, asks if they may

1:05:52search you, you can agree. Yes, I will

1:05:56agree to a search. That search is

1:05:58limited to the scope of the consent. A

1:06:00person can say, well, you can search my

1:06:02front pockets, not my back pockets. You

1:06:05can search my pants pockets, not my

1:06:06jacket pockets, whatever. The person to

1:06:09be searched, if consenting, can dictate

1:06:11the scope of that search and can

1:06:13withdraw consent at any time. Officer

1:06:16begins to search, reaches their hand

1:06:18into a pocket, subject changes their

1:06:19their mind, calls the search off. That's

1:06:23based on consent.

1:06:25Now, if a person is lawfully arrested,

1:06:29then the officer can can conduct a full

1:06:32search of that person

1:06:35in every pocket uh uh up and down legs,

1:06:38arms. It should be a full search of that

1:06:40person. Can the the officer can can

1:06:43conduct uh searches of containers on

1:06:46that person. I'm old enough that back in

1:06:48law school, we talked about film

1:06:50canisters that someone may hide drugs in

1:06:52or whatever. I don't think you see those

1:06:54too much anymore. But if a person who

1:06:57has been arrested has has a container in

1:07:00their pocket, then the officer could go

1:07:01in inside that that container. And the

1:07:04officer can also uh search the the area

1:07:07within the subject's immediate reach,

1:07:09within lunging distance. So that's a

1:07:12search incident to a lawful arrest. Now,

1:07:15a officer may also conduct a search of a

1:07:18person under exit circumstances. If

1:07:21there's a threat that for example

1:07:23evidence may be lost, they've they may

1:07:26have DNA under their fingernails, maybe

1:07:28they put drugs into their mouth that

1:07:29they might swallow, that might be an

1:07:32exigent circumstance that qualifies for

1:07:34a search because there's not enough time

1:07:36to get a warrant. And then finally,

1:07:39probation or parole. In California,

1:07:41generally anyone on parole from state

1:07:44prison has search terms. You can search,

1:07:47an officer can search that person, their

1:07:50premises or their automobile. With

1:07:53people on probation, it's a little

1:07:55different. Most probationers do have

1:07:58search terms, but they can vary widely

1:08:00from probationer to probationer. So, if

1:08:02you're an officer, you want to verify if

1:08:06a person is on probation, verify what

1:08:08those search terms are before conducting

1:08:10a search.

1:08:12>> I have a question or do you want us to

1:08:14wait till the end?

1:08:14>> Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Um, can you

1:08:16provide an example of an incident to

1:08:19lawful arrest? Like what would

1:08:20constitute something that is a lawful

1:08:22arrest to then search?

1:08:26>> So anytime someone is lawfully arrested,

1:08:30they've robbed a bank, assault with

1:08:33deadly weapon, um even a misdemeanor

1:08:37arrest. If that person is being is being

1:08:39arrested and taken in into custody, the

1:08:42officer may lawfully and should search

1:08:45that person. And again, that is a full

1:08:47body search. You

1:08:50>> Yes.

1:08:50>> Um so if somebody is just being stopped,

1:08:53but there's no reason like there's no

1:08:55reason for them or no legal um for legal

1:08:58right for them to be arrested. Let's say

1:08:59they're just look suspicious based on

1:09:01reasonable suspicion. Can they cannot

1:09:02search them?

1:09:03>> So let's talk about Terry versus Ohio.

1:09:06>> Okay. Okay. Uh, which is the stop and

1:09:09press case that I think you're

1:09:10referencing. So, under Terry versus

1:09:13Ohio, an officer may conduct a what's

1:09:16called a Terry stop. They may stop a

1:09:18person if the officer has specific facts

1:09:21that leads to reasonable suspicion that

1:09:23that person may be engaged or will

1:09:25engage in criminal activity. Now, the

1:09:28officer may stop that person to conduct

1:09:31a limited investigation by asking that

1:09:33person questions. the detention must be

1:09:36limited to investigating that

1:09:37suspension. Now, if an officer conducts

1:09:40a Terry stop, that does not authorize

1:09:43the officer to search that person's

1:09:47person.

1:09:48To conduct a patown search, the officer

1:09:52may be must be able to articulate why

1:09:54that person may be armed and dangerous.

1:09:58So, the officer has to articulate why

1:10:00that person may be armed and dangerous.

1:10:03If the officer can articulate that that

1:10:06risk, doesn't have to be verbal, but in

1:10:08their head, whatever, then they can

1:10:10conduct a pat down search of outer

1:10:13clothing for weapons only.

1:10:17They they're not looking for evidence.

1:10:19It's a search for protection. So, if an

1:10:23officer happens upon contraband and that

1:10:26officer can tell by the feel of it

1:10:29immediately that it's contraband, then

1:10:31they could uh seize that contraband, but

1:10:35they can't manipulate items or go into

1:10:38pockets. It's a pat down search of outer

1:10:41clothing for weapons only. That answer

1:10:44your question? Okay.

1:10:46>> I have a question on the on the Terry

1:10:49stop standard. Is it that is it a

1:10:51subjective standard or is it an

1:10:53objective standard? Meaning does the

1:10:55specific officer that's conducting the

1:10:57stop have to articulate why they stopped

1:11:00the person and fris them or is it that

1:11:03the facts have to be that like somebody

1:11:06evaluating assessing the case could

1:11:08determine that there was a reasonable

1:11:11articulable suspicion or whatever to to

1:11:14stop and frisk

1:11:14>> the latter.

1:11:15>> Okay. If if this case goes to trial,

1:11:18whatever, if if the person stop

1:11:19challenges the the stop or or the frisk

1:11:22in in court, yes. Then it's not just a

1:11:25subjective standard, uh a a a third

1:11:28party viewer, judge, jury, whatever

1:11:30would need to be able to to say yes.

1:11:32Based on upon a reasonable person's

1:11:33standard, the officer uh sufficiently

1:11:37articulated reasonable cause uh

1:11:39reasonable reasonable suspicion. So, in

1:11:42this case, um, they're patting down the

1:11:44person for weapons. They see a film

1:11:47canister. At that point, they can't open

1:11:48the film canister.

1:11:49>> They can,

1:11:50>> it's only searching for weapons.

1:11:52>> Correct.

1:11:53>> Okay.

1:11:58>> All right. So, we'll move on to searches

1:12:00to a search of a premises.

1:12:03So once again, a homeowner or apartment

1:12:08dweller, whomever, can consent to a

1:12:10search of their home. Now, when

1:12:13searching a premises,

1:12:15the again, if it's a voluntary consent,

1:12:19the person consenting can can dictate

1:12:21the scope of that search. You can search

1:12:23my living room, not my bedroom,

1:12:25whatever. And it can be revoked at any

1:12:28time. And again, it must be someone with

1:12:31authority to grant consent. So, for

1:12:34example, and we've talked about this

1:12:36before, but if I'm a landlord and I own

1:12:39rental property, I can't give the cops

1:12:43authority to search property that my

1:12:46tenant is renting. That authority has to

1:12:48come from that tenant. So, it has to be

1:12:50someone with authority that gives

1:12:52consent to the search.

1:12:55Once again, uh officers can conduct a

1:12:58search incident to a lawful arrest. So

1:13:00officers arrest someone in their home in

1:13:03a home. They can search the area

1:13:07immediately adjacent to to that person.

1:13:10Launching distance anywhere if that

1:13:12person may reach an area where a weapon

1:13:15may be stowed, whatever officers can can

1:13:17search that immediate area. Then they

1:13:19can also do a protective sweep of

1:13:21adjoining rooms or with articulation

1:13:25areas beyond adjoining rooms. They hear

1:13:28footsteps upstairs. They can go

1:13:29upstairs. But again, that's for

1:13:31protection only. They're not searching

1:13:33for evidence. They can't open up

1:13:35drawers. They could look in closets

1:13:37where someone may be hiding. They can

1:13:39look under a bed where someone may may

1:13:41be hiding. They couldn't look under the

1:13:43mattress. Someone probably is not going

1:13:45to hide under there. So again, that that

1:13:47extended search is a protective sweep

1:13:50for for potential threats from other

1:13:52persons only.

1:13:53>> I have a question um on the incident to

1:13:56lawful arrest. Um in the context of a

1:13:59non- premises um search incident to

1:14:02lawful arrest, does that does an officer

1:14:05have the ability to do that after a

1:14:07suspect is already handcuffed?

1:14:09>> Does the officer have ability to do

1:14:11what? to search incident to lawful

1:14:13arrest after a suspect is already

1:14:15handcuffed because my understanding is

1:14:16that sila is like a safety thing. So if

1:14:20you're like arresting somebody, you pat

1:14:22them down, you maybe search the glove

1:14:23box if they're standing next to the car

1:14:25or whatever some somewhere that they

1:14:26might be able to hide a weapon. But if

1:14:28they're, let's say they're arrested and

1:14:31you put them in the squad car or

1:14:33something, then can you can you search

1:14:36the car for example?

1:14:38>> So So we'll get to autos in in just a

1:14:40minute.

1:14:40>> Okay.

1:14:41Did do you have a non-auto

1:14:44question that No,

1:14:45>> you were asking.

1:14:46>> I guess I guess I'm thinking of is the

1:14:49automobile.

1:14:50>> Okay. Cuz because I think your initial

1:14:53question was, can you search them after

1:14:54they're handcuffed? And yes, if they've

1:14:56been arrested and then handcuffed, you

1:14:58definitely should search them before you

1:15:00put them in the squad car. After they're

1:15:03handcuffed. Yeah.

1:15:06All right.

1:15:11So let's move on to autos now. So once

1:15:15again, if you have an automobile in

1:15:17question, you can conduct a search if

1:15:20you have consent. Again, that consent

1:15:23must come from someone with with

1:15:25authority. So you officer stops a car,

1:15:29there's a driver and a passenger.

1:15:32The driver has apparent authority to

1:15:34grant consent. That passenger cannot

1:15:37grant consent unless the passenger owns

1:15:40the car. Let's say it's a parent, their

1:15:43teenager is driving, that parent owns

1:15:45the car, then they could grant authority

1:15:47to to to search. But if it's just the

1:15:49driver's buddy, then that passenger

1:15:52cannot grant consent to search the

1:15:54entire car. And again, if I didn't say

1:15:57this already, that voluntary consent

1:15:59would be limited to the scope of the

1:16:01consent as determined by the person

1:16:03consenting.

1:16:05So incident to lawful arrest, let's say

1:16:08an officer arrests someone after a

1:16:11traffic stop. They may search that

1:16:14passenger car compartment. And I when I

1:16:16say passenger compartment, that's the

1:16:18part where everybody sits, right? Driver

1:16:20seat, passenger seat, back seats,

1:16:21passenger compartment, not under the

1:16:24hood, not in the trunk. But incident to

1:16:26arrest officers may search that

1:16:28passenger compartment when the arrestee

1:16:30is unsecured and within reach of the

1:16:34passenger compartment. So idea thinking

1:16:37that if they could lunge into the

1:16:39passenger compartment, access a weapon,

1:16:42that's why that search is authorized

1:16:44under those circumstances. Now let's say

1:16:46that that person is handcuffed and in

1:16:49the back of a patrol car. Then officers

1:16:52can only search the passenger

1:16:54compartment for evidence related to the

1:16:56reason why they were arrested. So for

1:16:59example, if the person was arrested for

1:17:02drug running, then the officers could

1:17:03search the passenger compartment for

1:17:05drugs. If they're if they're arrested

1:17:07for uh driving with a suspended license,

1:17:11the officer has the license in their

1:17:12hand. They're not going to find any

1:17:14evidence in the car related to that uh

1:17:17offense.

1:17:19So, so the distinction there is any

1:17:22search subject to arrest must be related

1:17:23to the reason for the arrest. Once

1:17:27again, we have exent circumstances. So,

1:17:29if there's a threat that evidence may be

1:17:33destroyed

1:17:34uh or if there's any type of emergency

1:17:37where officers need to break into a car,

1:17:40there's a risk that some someone's in in

1:17:42a trunk and they need to break into the

1:17:44trunk and and rescue this this person

1:17:46because they've been kidnapped. they

1:17:47don't need to wait for a search warrant

1:17:49to to to do so as long as they have have

1:17:52probable cause to believe that that

1:17:53person is is being uh secured in the

1:17:56trunk. Then finally, of course, once

1:17:58again, we have probation or parole.

1:18:00Again, all paroleies generally have

1:18:02search conditions including searches of

1:18:05their vehicles.

1:18:07Uh and for probationers, it varies

1:18:09widely. So just be sure that you are

1:18:11familiar, you the officer are familiar

1:18:13with the pro uh probation conditions

1:18:16specific to that specific probationer.

1:18:19>> I have a question. Using your example,

1:18:21you're arrested for the suspended

1:18:23license

1:18:24and the officer sees something on your

1:18:27seat, drug pay, paraphernalia or what

1:18:29have you. Is that legal then to

1:18:33>> So we So we'll get to plain view also.

1:18:36Maybe I skipped it. Anyway, yes. So the

1:18:39plain view doctrine uh dictates that if

1:18:42an officer is in a location where they

1:18:44have a legal right to be and they see

1:18:47contraband in plain view then yes they

1:18:51could they could seize that item. So

1:18:53yes, but they can't do a search.

1:18:55>> They can only seize the item and not

1:18:57search.

1:18:58>> Correct.

1:18:59>> Okay. So only seize that item but not

1:19:01allow you to search the rest of the

1:19:02vehicle.

1:19:03>> Correct.

1:19:04I see u I don't know a stash of drugs

1:19:08out in plain view. I can grab it. I

1:19:11can't continue the search under the

1:19:12seat.

1:19:15It's a law.

1:19:21>> A law concerning what?

1:19:23>> To me that doesn't make sense.

1:19:25>> Fourth Amendment.

1:19:28>> I I it it all emanates from case law

1:19:31related to the Fourth Amendment. I do

1:19:33not recall off the top of my head the

1:19:36name of the case that establishes the

1:19:38plain view doctrine, but it's just what

1:19:41the law says.

1:19:42>> Basically, it's not a search if

1:19:44something is right in front of you.

1:19:46>> Okay?

1:19:47>> You know, like if you're walking by on

1:19:49the sidewalk and you see look in

1:19:52someone's window and they're like

1:19:53committing a crime, that's not a search

1:19:55from a police officer from a Fourth

1:19:57Amendment standpoint.

1:19:58>> Okay, I get it. Yeah, I understand.

1:20:00Um I have a question on on search

1:20:03incidental arrest. So this prong the

1:20:06arrest is unsecured and within reach of

1:20:08a weapon or evidence does that so it

1:20:11sounds like that does not apply in

1:20:13context outside of the vehicle uh

1:20:15context. So for example like let's say

1:20:17the police arrest somebody in a laundry

1:20:19room in their house or something and

1:20:21they put them in handcuffs and they take

1:20:23them out. Can they then search like the

1:20:25drawers in the laundry room? Okay. So

1:20:28it's only [clears throat] when they're

1:20:29unsecured or how does that do you know

1:20:31the contours of

1:20:32>> Well, okay. So, right. So, so let's say

1:20:34someone is arrested in their house and

1:20:36they're standing in the middle of the

1:20:38living room. While that person is there,

1:20:40you can search within lunching distance.

1:20:44But once you take them outside that

1:20:46house, then officers can't then go in to

1:20:48the middle of of the living room and

1:20:50search where they were standing.

1:20:53>> They can do a protective sweep after the

1:20:55fact.

1:20:55>> No. Once everyone's out of the house,

1:20:58>> then then the danger has dissipated,

1:21:00right?

1:21:01>> So there's no need to go back into the

1:21:02house and do a protective sweep.

1:21:04>> Okay. And for a protective sweep, they

1:21:06can search areas where someone might

1:21:08hide. Yes. Right. Like a closet or under

1:21:10bed or whatever, but they can't like

1:21:11open drawers. Yes.

1:21:12>> They can't look in compartments where

1:21:14like somebody wouldn't be able to

1:21:16>> conceal themselves basically. Is that

1:21:18right?

1:21:18>> Yes.

1:21:18>> Okay.

1:21:19>> Can I add one thing maybe clarifying

1:21:21question? Um it is my understanding that

1:21:24especially in probation, right? So let's

1:21:26say somebody's on probation, they're

1:21:28doing a search and from my

1:21:29understanding, Sana PD has a contract

1:21:31with probation to do searches to go with

1:21:34um AB 109ers,

1:21:37don't they?

1:21:38>> So there are probationers officers

1:21:40assigned at the SI Police Department.

1:21:43>> Yeah. So then they would be able to

1:21:46further the search if the person has is

1:21:49on probation and they're searching their

1:21:50home. They can search other places if

1:21:53it's um communal, right? Like living

1:21:55rooms, kitchen, if they're even if

1:21:57they're share spaces

1:21:59in the right.

1:22:01>> Yes.

1:22:01>> Thank you.

1:22:03>> Uh question. So if the ply is um on the

1:22:06passenger seat, can they search the car

1:22:09even though the owner is the ones

1:22:10driving the car and he doesn't consent?

1:22:12So it's

1:22:15so the officer will be able to search

1:22:16the parole e but it's my understanding

1:22:19not the entire car because it's not

1:22:21their car.

1:22:22>> Okay.

1:22:24I have a question. I know that gang

1:22:26junctions have been dissolved in Orange

1:22:28County by the district attorney but just

1:22:29for um just to note does that apply also

1:22:34um searches with no warrants for folks

1:22:37that are in um conjunction databases.

1:22:40>> Sorry. Sorry. Say one more time

1:22:42>> regarding gang injunctions.

1:22:44>> Gang injunctions.

1:22:44>> Yeah. I know that in Orange County the

1:22:46district attorney has dissolved them

1:22:47all, but just for the purpose of knowing

1:22:50uh when it comes to searches with no

1:22:52warrant, do that does that also apply to

1:22:54individuals that are in gain junction

1:22:56databases?

1:23:01Just so I understand your question,

1:23:02you're asking

1:23:04what are the search parameters related

1:23:06to a ganging junction

1:23:08>> individuals in a gang junction database

1:23:11>> that that I I'm not specifically

1:23:14familiar with. I'm happy to

1:23:16>> okay

1:23:16>> research that and get back to you.

1:23:18Commander, do you

1:23:21>> So for one, there are no gang

1:23:22injunctions anymore. Uh, and secondly, I

1:23:25don't think there there were any search

1:23:28conditions if you were an injunction.

1:23:30>> Got it. Okay. Thank you.

1:23:34>> One one follow up on the question I

1:23:36asked earlier. How do you keep from

1:23:38expanding that search when you see

1:23:40contraband have to reach into the car

1:23:43and now you see something else? You know

1:23:45what I'm saying? How do you how do you

1:23:47contain that to the item you first

1:23:50initially saw?

1:23:52And how do you not say, "Oh, well,

1:23:54there's there could be a weapon now.

1:23:56There could be because there's drug."

1:23:58You can't. So you you

1:24:00how do you how do you keep somebody from

1:24:02expanding their search?

1:24:04>> Well, so you can't look in the glove

1:24:05box, for example. You can't look in the

1:24:07center console. That would be expanding

1:24:09the the search. You can't look under the

1:24:11seat, right?

1:24:13>> Well, I had to open the door to get the

1:24:15thing. So now I saw what's under the

1:24:16seat.

1:24:19If if you're if the officer is in in a

1:24:22place where they have a legal right to

1:24:25be and see something in plain view, then

1:24:27they can

1:24:28>> it

1:24:30these situations are very spec

1:24:32specific.

1:24:33>> Yes.

1:24:34>> And I'm sure you can come up with 100

1:24:35different scenarios. Well, what if this

1:24:37what if that? Understood.

1:24:38>> So, so all I'm doing is is providing you

1:24:42with a basic framework of the law and

1:24:44your ultimate consideration here is what

1:24:47do we want SAPD policy to reflect? So,

1:24:52do you want SAPD policy to be so

1:24:55specific that it answers that specific

1:24:58question or are you looking to ensure

1:25:00that the policy contains a general

1:25:03framework so that generally officers on

1:25:05patrol know the parameters that they

1:25:07have to operate under?

1:25:08>> Yeah, it's now I I get your point. It's

1:25:10just uh

1:25:13it's easy to drift from from that, you

1:25:17know. It really is.

1:25:18>> Right. Look, some of these issues are

1:25:20addressed in court, right? Evidence is

1:25:23seized. The the subject challenges that

1:25:26ev seizure in an evidentiary hearing.

1:25:29The officer says, "Oh, well, it was in

1:25:32plain view." The suspect says, "Oh,

1:25:33well, you turned your head to the left."

1:25:36So, they can they can sort that out in

1:25:38court or or or in a hearing.

1:25:40>> All right. Thank you. That's that helps.

1:25:41Thank you. Yeah.

1:25:46>> All right. So, we

1:25:48covered probation approval. Okay. All

1:25:51right. Still sticking with automobiles.

1:25:53There's no need for a officer to have a

1:25:55warrant to search an auto when

1:25:58conducting a protective search of the

1:26:01passenger compartment for weapons. And

1:26:03once again, that officer must have a

1:26:05reasonable belief that a suspect may

1:26:08access a weapon. This is kind of like a

1:26:10a Terry stop uh pat down frisk in the

1:26:14automobile context.

1:26:16Then there's also what's called the

1:26:18probable cause vehicle exception. This

1:26:21is unique to vehicles. It's in the

1:26:23title, probable cause vehicle exception.

1:26:26So automobiles are unique in that

1:26:29they're on wheels and readily mobile. So

1:26:32the concept here is that often officers

1:26:36should not have to wait for a warrant

1:26:38because by the time they get the

1:26:40warrant, that driver has driven the

1:26:42evidence away. So

1:26:45this exception includes any part of a

1:26:47car where the officer has probable cause

1:26:50that evidence may be hidden. So if an

1:26:53officer has probable cause that the

1:26:56suspect is is running guns and has

1:27:00assault rifles stashed somewhere, you

1:27:02can't look in the center console or the

1:27:04glove box because you're not going to

1:27:05fit a long gun in there, right? So it's

1:27:07limited to wherever the evidence you're

1:27:10looking for may be located. Now again,

1:27:13the vehicle must be mobile. If the car

1:27:15is up on blocks, it's not going anywhere

1:27:18anytime soon. This would not apply. If

1:27:20it's a mo mobile home, that home was

1:27:23brought in on wheels, but then it's

1:27:24established. It's going to be a very

1:27:26long time before, you know, to get that

1:27:28home ready to to move again. So, this

1:27:31exception would not apply [music] then.

1:27:33The car must be mobile. And again, the

1:27:36officer must have lawful access to that

1:27:38vehicle. If that vehicle is parked in

1:27:40someone's private garage, you would need

1:27:43uh a separate exception or a warrant to

1:27:45access the garage and then get to the

1:27:46vehicle.

1:27:48And then finally, impoundments. If if a

1:27:51car is impounded, officers may conduct

1:27:53an inventory of everything in that car.

1:27:56And that inventory may be conducted at

1:27:58scene before they tow the vehicle or

1:28:01later after it's been towed to the

1:28:03impound yard.

1:28:05Something else I want to touch on in the

1:28:07context of relevant law is is community

1:28:09caretaking. This is something that SAPD

1:28:11policy references. So I wanted to go

1:28:14over it quickly. So this is a concept

1:28:17that also applies to cars. And the lead

1:28:21case here is Caddy. I think it's Caddyy

1:28:24versus Dumbroski. Dumb Dumbrski. Anyway,

1:28:27Dumbrski was a Chicago law enforcement

1:28:29officer. He was traveling. He cra he was

1:28:33driving drunk. He crashed his car into a

1:28:35bridge or embankment or something. He

1:28:37was arrested. Police had his car towed

1:28:40to a private garage where it was where

1:28:43it was left out in the open.

1:28:47So, law enforcement officers went back

1:28:50later to retrieve Dumbroski's gun from

1:28:53that car. He had left it in the car

1:28:56and the Supreme Court upheld that search

1:28:59for the public safety considerations.

1:29:02There was a unsecured firearm and a gun

1:29:04in a in a towy yard that could have been

1:29:08accessed by a member of of the public.

1:29:10So officers were allowed to to to

1:29:12retrieve that gun and that did not

1:29:15violate the warrant requirement. That's

1:29:17an exception to the warrant requirement.

1:29:19The court called that a community

1:29:21caretaking function.

1:29:24Now that's limited to automobiles.

1:29:27in the Ki Kiglia versus Strom case,

1:29:31another Supreme Court case. So in this

1:29:33case, there was an argument at a home

1:29:35between Edward Kiglia and his wife.

1:29:40Kiglia

1:29:41placed a handgun on a table and

1:29:44suggested that his wife shoot him. They

1:29:47both left. They left the firearm behind.

1:29:49Afterward, police entered his home and

1:29:51seized that firearm and another one. The

1:29:54lower court upheld that entry and search

1:29:58and seizure under the community

1:30:00caretaking provision. They were

1:30:02extending it from the automobile context

1:30:04to the home. Supreme Court vacated that

1:30:09judgment and held that community

1:30:11caretaking alone does not justify

1:30:13warrant warrantless searches or seizures

1:30:15inside a home. That community caretaking

1:30:18function is limited to automobiles.

1:30:21All

1:30:22right, let's transition to policy 311

1:30:25itself and we'll go through some of the

1:30:26specifics included within the policy.

1:30:29And just for context here, so other

1:30:33California law enforcement agencies have

1:30:35the exact same policy. Examples are San

1:30:38Diego San Diego Community College and

1:30:40Union City Police Department. These are

1:30:42other agencies that use uh Lexipole. So

1:30:46this is a fairly widely used policy.

1:30:49It's worth noting that to its credit,

1:30:52SAPD does have a search and seizure

1:30:54policy. Some agencies don't. Orange

1:30:57County Sheriff's Department does not.

1:30:59LAPD does not. These concepts are found

1:31:02in other policies and in training

1:31:04provided by by those agencies, but some

1:31:07a agencies just don't have a distinct

1:31:09search and seizure policy.

1:31:12As as you may have seen, uh uh SCPD's

1:31:16policy is is two pages. That's a that's

1:31:18common for all the agencies that use

1:31:21Alexipole. Uh CHP's policy is 28 pages,

1:31:27but most of that is just instructions on

1:31:29how to fill out forms and half of that

1:31:32policy is a 15-page appendix of just

1:31:34forms that officers have to fill fill

1:31:37out. So just something to note,

1:31:40something of interest.

1:31:42All right. In terms of policy 311, it it

1:31:46provides a list. It it establishes the

1:31:49fourth amendment constitutional

1:31:52framework of generally you need a

1:31:54warrant and then it provides a list of

1:31:58exceptions to that warrant requirement.

1:31:59The policy says that the list includes,

1:32:03but it says exceptions include but are

1:32:06not limited to, valid consent, which we

1:32:09talked about, incident to lawful arrest,

1:32:11legitimate community caretaking

1:32:13interests, vehicle searches under

1:32:15certain circumstances, exigent

1:32:17circumstances, then authorizations under

1:32:20conditions of probation or parole.

1:32:24Now policy 311 relies heavily on sources

1:32:28outside of the policy. So it says and

1:32:31this is true because case law regarding

1:32:33search and seizure is constantly

1:32:34changing. Each member of this department

1:32:36is is expected to act in each situation

1:32:39according to current training and their

1:32:41familiarity with clearly established

1:32:43rights. Goes on to say that all seizures

1:32:46will comply with relevant federal and

1:32:48state law governing the seizure of

1:32:49persons and property. And it adds that

1:32:52officers are encouraged to contact a

1:32:54supervisor to resolve questions

1:32:55regarding search and seizure. So an

1:32:57officer is out in the field, they're

1:32:59like, "Uh, what do I do?" They don't

1:33:00have to decide for themselves. They can

1:33:02call a supervisor. [music]

1:33:07The policy also establishes some search

1:33:10protocols and expectations. It requires

1:33:13that officers conduct searches with

1:33:15dignity and courtesy. Officers should

1:33:18explain the reason for the search and

1:33:20how it will be conducted.

1:33:22It states that property should be left

1:33:24in a condition as close as reasonably

1:33:26possible to the pre-arch condition. They

1:33:28can't just wreck everything.

1:33:30And then officers should minimize the

1:33:32need for forcible entry. So instead of

1:33:35breaking down a door when when feasible,

1:33:38when reasonable, try to obtain keys,

1:33:40combinations or access codes

1:33:43to locked

1:33:45doors, etc.

1:33:47When officers need to search someone of

1:33:49the opposite general uh gender and

1:33:53reasonable effort should be made to use

1:33:54an officer of the same sex as the

1:33:56subject. When that's not practical,

1:33:59another officer or supervisor should

1:34:01witness the search and the officer

1:34:04should not search areas of the body

1:34:06covered by tight fitting clothing or

1:34:08clothing where one could not reasonably

1:34:11hide a weapon or contraband. tight

1:34:13fitting,

1:34:15yoga pants, whatever.

1:34:17>> What would be an example of that

1:34:20clothing that could not reasonably

1:34:22conceal a weapon or a contraband?

1:34:24>> Tight fitting yoga pants.

1:34:28If if someone is wearing like tights

1:34:32and it's clear that there's not a

1:34:35sidearm bulging from

1:34:38their their waistband, the groin area,

1:34:40then then under this policy, one may

1:34:44reasonably decide, okay, I don't need to

1:34:46search the groin area, there's there's

1:34:49not a gun there or there. Yeah.

1:34:51>> But if the person is wearing like loose

1:34:52fit clothing, then they can

1:34:54>> Oh, yes. Yes.

1:35:01So documentation. Whenever officers

1:35:04conduct a search, they should fill out

1:35:06the appropriate report. And in that

1:35:08report, they should document the reason

1:35:10for the search, efforts to minimize the

1:35:12intrusiveness of that search, any

1:35:14injuries or damage that occurred, the

1:35:17search results, including property

1:35:19seized, and efforts to use an officer of

1:35:21the same sex as a person being searched.

1:35:25Then finally, the policy also covers

1:35:27training and review. So once a

1:35:31search report is concluded, supervisors

1:35:33must review that report to ensure that

1:35:35it's accurate, that actions were

1:35:36properly documented, and that legal

1:35:39requirements and SBD policy was

1:35:41followed. Then the policy also addresses

1:35:45training. It says that SCBD will provide

1:35:47relevant and current training to

1:35:49officers as guidance for the for the

1:35:51application of current law regarding

1:35:52search and seizure situations. as

1:35:54appropriate.

1:35:58So, in terms of just a few notes and and

1:36:01suggestions, observations, I didn't do a

1:36:04deep dive into this. I didn't do a red

1:36:06line of the policy, just a couple of

1:36:09general observations. I think there are

1:36:12the policy has some strengths. It's

1:36:14obviously based on a constitutional

1:36:15framework, which is crucial. It requires

1:36:18that officers receive relevant training,

1:36:20which is important because off the

1:36:23policy largely relies on officers

1:36:25training when they're out in the field

1:36:27making search and seizure decisions. It

1:36:29emphasizes respectful conduct to members

1:36:32of of the community, which is very

1:36:34important and requires that searches be

1:36:36documented in relevant reports and

1:36:39reviewed by a supervisor. So someone

1:36:41should be reviewing these searches to

1:36:44ensure that they are be being conducted

1:36:46per policy.

1:36:50Now again the policy does rely heavily

1:36:54on sources outside of the policy. Again

1:36:56it's only two pages so not a lot of

1:36:59detail there.

1:37:01I would consider expanding that detail

1:37:03just a little bit to to create a broader

1:37:07framework from which officers in the

1:37:08field can operate. So for example, the

1:37:11policy mentions valid cons consent. I

1:37:14would consider answering the question

1:37:15within the policy. Okay, what equates to

1:37:17valid consent? What is the scope of a

1:37:20search incident subject to to an arrest?

1:37:24What constitutes a community caretaking

1:37:26interest? Again, we saw that distinction

1:37:28between automobiles and the home. What

1:37:32are examples of exigent circumstances?

1:37:34What are key distinctions between

1:37:35searches involving automobiles,

1:37:38houses, persons, and then what type of

1:37:42search may be conducted regarding a

1:37:45Terry stop?

1:37:50And a lot of those questions that the

1:37:53policy is accurate in that it states

1:37:54that search and seizure law is

1:37:56constantly evolving, but a lot of those

1:37:58concepts have been in place for years.

1:38:00So I think that a firmer framework could

1:38:03be uh established on those foundational

1:38:06principles that have been established

1:38:08for a long time.

1:38:10Understanding that

1:38:13other aspects of the law will be

1:38:14changing as as uh supreme as the Supreme

1:38:18Court whether state or federal make

1:38:20makes various upcoming decisions.

1:38:24A couple other suggestions. Again the

1:38:26policy references training to to its

1:38:28credit. I would cons consider including

1:38:31a little more detail. How often is

1:38:33training required? Is there an annual

1:38:35training? Is the training provided as

1:38:37law develops? How is training provided?

1:38:41Is it roll call training? Are training

1:38:43bulletins issued every time the law

1:38:45changes? And I would also consider

1:38:48clarifying the role of the training

1:38:49division commander in ensuring that all

1:38:51of this takes place. And finally, within

1:38:54the policy, I would site other relevant

1:38:57policies. Again, there's a there's a

1:38:59warrant policy. This policy could uh

1:39:02site that policy. Someone's reading the

1:39:04search and seizure policy. They're like,

1:39:05"What about warrants?" Oh, well, I see

1:39:08here that I can reference uh the

1:39:11specific warrant policy. Again, for for

1:39:14other search topics such as aerial

1:39:16searches, this policy might site to the

1:39:19UAS policy where that topic I think

1:39:22should be adequately covered.

1:39:25All right, that's it for my

1:39:26presentation.

1:39:29I'll take any questions from my chair.

1:39:32>> Thank you.

1:39:34All righty. Uh questions, comments from

1:39:36commissioners. Uh three minutes around

1:39:38and we'll go two rounds if necessary.

1:39:41Commissioner Mahia,

1:39:43>> thank you. So, thank you for the

1:39:45presentation. I do appreciate um

1:39:47addressing the Terry stop. I think it's

1:39:49a component that it's missing. I believe

1:39:51it's also part of another policy, right?

1:39:54um

1:39:56like stop in I think it's 411 or 418.

1:40:00>> That's correct.

1:40:01>> Um but I I do think it's important to

1:40:03also include it here. Um I do have one

1:40:07question. I have one question for uh

1:40:08Senana Pedia. I'm curious if you have

1:40:11the stats or the data on what the

1:40:14reports on reasonable suspicion for the

1:40:16specific facts are. So when they're

1:40:19stopping someone for reasonable

1:40:21suspicion, what is the most common

1:40:23specific facts or what do officers

1:40:25usually report?

1:40:28>> There is no stats that we collect on

1:40:30that. You know, I would say search and

1:40:32seizure comes into play on a daily basis

1:40:36at all times. Uh and so sometimes people

1:40:39are arrested and it's documented in a

1:40:41police report. uh but there is no stat

1:40:44report that we can generate based on

1:40:48on

1:40:49>> so if it's not ar if there doesn't lead

1:40:50to an arrest they're not documented

1:40:54>> they're documented on but not on a

1:40:55police report and again so to generate a

1:40:57a report of what you're asking uh I

1:41:01would have to get back to you but I'm

1:41:02not sure if that's something that would

1:41:04be feasible

1:41:05>> okay thank you and the reason I asked is

1:41:07because as noted in our annual report

1:41:10the most frequent complaints we get tend

1:41:12to be for unreasonable search um and

1:41:14seized. So I would be interested in what

1:41:16the data says um in terms of the gender

1:41:19component. So in the policy search

1:41:21involving persons of the opposite sex

1:41:23from the searching officer, it does

1:41:25state that but I there's no provisions

1:41:27on binary language that provides on

1:41:30guidance on whatsoever also on

1:41:32transgender gender non-conforming

1:41:34individual. Does the NPD have any

1:41:37training or policy or standards on that?

1:41:41There is training and policies as you're

1:41:44uh inquiring about. Uh I don't have that

1:41:47with me today, but there is training

1:41:49specifically.

1:41:51>> Okay. That I think it would be helpful

1:41:54or maybe important to also document that

1:41:56in the policy at least in terms of

1:41:58transgender and and non-binary or LGBTQ

1:42:01individuals. um

1:42:04the part of that states also um

1:42:08requiring for dignity, courtesy and

1:42:10explanation of the search, but it

1:42:12doesn't address the use of physical

1:42:14force during the search at the moment of

1:42:16an arrest. And I'm wondering how Senate

1:42:18PD does how Senate PD trains officers to

1:42:22ensure that they're providing dignity

1:42:23and courtesy to all individuals

1:42:25regardless of um gender, sex, or housing

1:42:29situations.

1:42:31Again,

1:42:33the officers receive training whether it

1:42:35be a roll call uh training bulletins or

1:42:37uh on a computer where they have to

1:42:39monthly u

1:42:42answer questions related to different

1:42:43policies.

1:42:46>> So did do they get training on

1:42:50how to ensure that they're also

1:42:51providing dignity and courtesy to

1:42:53unhoused population?

1:42:57>> Yes.

1:42:58I would like to know what type of

1:43:00training in the future.

1:43:04Those are all my questions for now.

1:43:08>> Thank you. Um, anyone else?

1:43:09>> Yeah, I do.

1:43:10>> Mr. Gr,

1:43:11>> I do. Thank you. Um, Mr. Morris or Jack,

1:43:14um, correct me if I misunderstood you.

1:43:18you were talking about uh stopping a car

1:43:21and the officer saw drugs or something

1:43:23in there so he can confiscate that or

1:43:26arrest the guy for having that or

1:43:28whatever is correct.

1:43:31>> Okay. Correct. Here

1:43:33>> right. So if a if an officer sees

1:43:36contraband in plain view and the officer

1:43:38is in a location where they have a legal

1:43:40right to be then they may seize that.

1:43:42>> Okay. But did I understand that or

1:43:44misunderstand that supposing you saw a

1:43:48knife uh underneath the either the

1:43:51driver's seat or the passenger seat, you

1:43:53can't touch that. Is that correct? Did I

1:43:55misunderstand that?

1:43:56>> Well, well, it's

1:43:58>> because that was because that wasn't

1:44:00what he was stopped for.

1:44:03>> Well, a knife isn't contraband. Are is a

1:44:06person within lunging distance of the

1:44:08knife? I don't know that I'm

1:44:09>> Well, the story that you told, I'm

1:44:11assuming the person was all by himself.

1:44:13Is that right? Or or do you It was just

1:44:15a story. I don't know.

1:44:17>> I'm sorry. Say, say again.

1:44:18>> Okay. The officer had a reason for

1:44:21stopping a car, correct?

1:44:23>> Okay.

1:44:24>> Occurs. Okay. Now, he goes up to the to

1:44:27the driver and says, you know, you ran

1:44:29through that stop or you ran through the

1:44:30red or something like this and notices a

1:44:32contraband. Okay. So, you're saying he

1:44:35can do something about that, the

1:44:37officer. Correct. take him in for having

1:44:38that in the car or open.

1:44:41>> Right. So, so it's in in plain view, he

1:44:43sees,

1:44:44>> okay,

1:44:45>> illegal drugs.

1:44:46>> So, as the officer's standing there, a

1:44:48lot of times you can see underneath the

1:44:51either the passenger seat or the

1:44:53driver's seat or somewhere else in the

1:44:55car that there's knives knives or gun or

1:44:59something. Wh Why can't you take that

1:45:02and get him for that, too? Or can you?

1:45:04Well, well, it's not illegal to to have

1:45:06a a knife. Now, I think what you're

1:45:10asking about is after safety issue.

1:45:13>> Yes. Okay.

1:45:14>> So, but

1:45:17so,

1:45:18so ask your question again.

1:45:20>> I think it might be more helpful.

1:45:24>> Okay.

1:45:25>> Okay.

1:45:26>> Okay. He he m maybe while he was being

1:45:28stopped or something, he got like he

1:45:30probably said, "Put my gun under the

1:45:31seat." Something like that. So, so there

1:45:34>> can officer what I'm asking I'm sorry.

1:45:36What I'm asking is can the officer do

1:45:38anything about that gun sitting there

1:45:40along with the um comp contraband?

1:45:43You're saying yes.

1:45:44>> Probably the sequence of events would be

1:45:47the officer sees the contraband in plain

1:45:50view. They arrest the person. They take

1:45:53him out of the car. They put him under

1:45:54arrest and then they do a search

1:45:56incident to a lawful arrest and they

1:45:57take

1:45:58>> the dangerous item like the knife or the

1:46:00gun as part of that secondary search I

1:46:03would guess is what what would happen.

1:46:05>> I Well, now yeah, you got me confused.

1:46:08>> Well, sure. Once once officers see the

1:46:12drugs, if they're illegal drugs, then

1:46:14they have probable cause for an arrest.

1:46:16They didn't conduct an illegal search.

1:46:19>> Okay, gotcha. They just happened to they

1:46:21conducted a lawful traffic stop. There's

1:46:24drugs sitting right there on on the

1:46:25seat. They're in plain view. Now that

1:46:28has now they have probable cause for for

1:46:30an arrest. So then they can do a search

1:46:32incident to arrest

1:46:34>> a search incident of something else.

1:46:37>> Well,

1:46:37>> for an arrest. That's what I'm getting

1:46:39at.

1:46:40when if they're conducting a search

1:46:42incident to arrest and they can even if

1:46:44that person is secured in the back of

1:46:47their squad car then they could search

1:46:49the car for for drugs. So they could at

1:46:52that point they could look wherever.

1:46:54>> Okay. So they can then do something

1:46:56about the other stuff.

1:46:57>> It's very fact specific. But again what

1:47:01what I'd like the commission to focus on

1:47:03is what you want the policy to say.

1:47:06Right? The policy isn't going to ask

1:47:08every answer every single question about

1:47:10every single scenario, but I I think the

1:47:14commission's focus should be on ensuring

1:47:16that the policy establishes the

1:47:18framework you think the police

1:47:19department needs so that officers in the

1:47:22field have the tools that they need to

1:47:25use based on the policy

1:47:26>> utilize it. Okay.

1:47:27>> Yeah.

1:47:28>> Okay. I think I got an answer.

1:47:31[laughter]

1:47:31Thank you.

1:47:34>> Any other questions?

1:47:37So for B, officers should explain to the

1:47:39person being searched the reason for the

1:47:42search. So what if there's a language

1:47:43barrier? Um the officer that shows up

1:47:46can only speak English and the person

1:47:48they're talking to can only speak

1:47:49Spanish. Um is there an attempt to get

1:47:53another officer to to come and that

1:47:55knows how to speak Spanish to come and

1:47:57talk to the individual?

1:47:59Generally speaking, you know, in cases

1:48:01that there's a language barrier, there

1:48:02will be some officer uh requested by

1:48:06that officer because you wouldn't be

1:48:08able to conduct an investigation, make

1:48:10an arrest, fill out paperwork, whatever

1:48:12the case may be, if you have a language

1:48:14barrier. So, more often than not,

1:48:16there's going to be someone who speaks

1:48:18that language. But in the case that

1:48:20there wasn't um

1:48:23because of the language barrier, let's

1:48:25say that somebody doesn't understand

1:48:26English and they unknowingly consent

1:48:30uh to to the search because of that

1:48:32language barrier. Um, I would like for

1:48:35there to be something here that says,

1:48:37um, that if the individual does not

1:48:40speak English, um, or only speaks

1:48:43Vietnamese, that there has to be, um,

1:48:47communication given to that person in

1:48:49their language so they know exactly what

1:48:50they're consenting to. That that has to

1:48:53be a requirement.

1:48:59My guess is that there would be an

1:49:00attempt, right? Right now it says that

1:49:02it's not a requirement, right? Like

1:49:04>> no, just because it doesn't speak to it

1:49:06doesn't mean it's not a requirement. We

1:49:07would be against the constitutional law

1:49:10if we contacted someone who spoke

1:49:12Vietnamese and just searched them is

1:49:14like, well, he can't understand, so

1:49:15we're just going to search them. We

1:49:16can't do that. So, okay. Just because

1:49:18the policy doesn't speak to it doesn't

1:49:20mean that we're going to violate policy

1:49:22andor the fourth amendment.

1:49:23>> Okay. I didn't know that was protected

1:49:25under the fourth amendment. So, okay. I

1:49:27just wanted to make sure

1:49:28>> consent has to be informed consent. So

1:49:30if somebody doesn't if you're asking for

1:49:32somebody to consent in a language that

1:49:34the other person doesn't understand,

1:49:36it's not an informed because they don't

1:49:38know what they don't know what you're

1:49:39asking. Um that make sense?

1:49:44>> Well, you you would probably have to get

1:49:47somebody that can communicate with that

1:49:49person and explain, you know, that they

1:49:51want to the police officer wants to

1:49:52search their person or their car and get

1:49:55their consent in a a manner that that

1:49:57person would understand.

1:49:58>> Yeah. And I'm assuming they would do

1:49:59that right before they even probably

1:50:01continue talking to the person.

1:50:03>> If they're relying on a person's

1:50:05consent, right,

1:50:06>> to to be searched, then yes, that would

1:50:08probably be good.

1:50:09>> They have to be. Okay.

1:50:10>> Well, well, the other aspect, like you

1:50:12discussed earlier, it'd get thrown out.

1:50:15If nobody spoke the language, it would

1:50:18be easy to kick that out in court to

1:50:20your point earlier.

1:50:22>> Right. But I would also add an officer

1:50:25couldn't just indefinitely detain

1:50:27someone to wait on a uh an interpreter

1:50:30to to arrive.

1:50:35>> I also just want to point out one thing

1:50:36about the the policy because

1:50:38Commissioner Vega brought up the

1:50:42um I think it says something about uh

1:50:45searches should be carried out with due

1:50:47regard uh and respect for private

1:50:49property. And then it says um you know

1:50:51you should explain to the person being

1:50:53searched the reason for the search and

1:50:54things like that. So to me that language

1:50:56suggests that should is like okay it's

1:50:59you should it's a suggestion but it's

1:51:01not a requirement. Is that am I reading

1:51:04that correctly? Um okay I just want to

1:51:06clarify that point because I think it's

1:51:07important. Um because you see you know

1:51:10examples where somebody searched and

1:51:12they're like why am I being searched

1:51:13blah blah blah and the police officers

1:51:15don't explain. I I don't know if that

1:51:17would necessarily be a violation of this

1:51:19policy as it's currently written.

1:51:24>> So you you want to see shall

1:51:27>> rather than should you want something

1:51:28firmer, correct? Something more

1:51:30positive.

1:51:31>> I I don't I don't know if you can do a

1:51:33shall because it's just very fact

1:51:34specific. Maybe the officers are, you

1:51:36know, it's an exigent circumstance or

1:51:38something and they have to search quick.

1:51:41you can't explain to the person why

1:51:43you're searching, what you're searching,

1:51:45or explain to them how you're going to

1:51:46carry out the search. I think there

1:51:47needs to be some flexibility. So, I I

1:51:49would leave it as is. Um, but I do think

1:51:51it's good practice, if possible, to

1:51:54explain to somebody why they're being

1:51:55stopped search.

1:51:57>> Sense. Um, any other question?

1:52:00Commissioner Per.

1:52:04>> Thank you, Director Morris. Uh no

1:52:06questions more that I'll I'll I'm

1:52:08supportive of having a deeper policy

1:52:10review to then go into the

1:52:12recommendations that you have and then

1:52:14really laying down the framework uh for

1:52:16what you uh later on the presentation.

1:52:18Uh I'll also be interested to see if we

1:52:20could along a policy review do similar

1:52:24process to what we did with the U visa

1:52:26uh policy review look into um uh con

1:52:31constitutional organizations out there

1:52:33that that might be able to provide um

1:52:35some meaningful um

1:52:38uh perspective onto this as well.

1:52:44>> Thank you Christian Mah.

1:52:46>> Yeah, I agree. I think especially on the

1:52:49Terry stop I think um there's no

1:52:51language on there currently. So adding

1:52:54the language I also would encourage um

1:52:56to look at research that discusses and

1:52:59has found both um uh lawsuits right that

1:53:03have um used ter but but led to

1:53:06unconstitutional searches. So making

1:53:08sure that in terms of preventative work

1:53:10um how can we ensure that we reduce the

1:53:13adverse effects that this can lead to.

1:53:15Um, and then definitely adding on the

1:53:18conversation about gender, transgender,

1:53:19non-binary, um, and, uh, the unhoused

1:53:22population as protective factors as

1:53:24well.

1:53:26>> Thank you. Any other questions,

1:53:28comments?

1:53:31All righty. Well, that finishes that.

1:53:33Uh, staff, have you captured

1:53:35commissioner's direction? I don't know

1:53:36that we really have one yet except for

1:53:38further discussion.

1:53:42All righty. Wait. Oh, go ahead.

1:53:46>> That's a good question. Do we need a

1:53:48motion or uh do we bring it up at

1:53:52commission requested item

1:53:55>> to

1:53:56>> for further discussion?

1:53:57>> For further policy discussion.

1:53:58>> Yeah. Policy review. And

1:54:02>> uh let's do a motion.

1:54:03>> All right.

1:54:04>> In a second.

1:54:05>> Commissioner Mah, would you like?

1:54:06>> Sure. I move to take um Pereira and

1:54:09Mice's recommendations as well as um

1:54:12Director Morrison's recommendations on

1:54:14further um analyzing the policy 311.

1:54:19>> Do we have a second?

1:54:21>> I'll second.

1:54:23>> Thank you,

1:54:25Madam Secretary.

1:54:30Motion by uh Commissioner Mia, seconded

1:54:34by Commissioner

1:54:36Pereira to further analyze uh policy

1:54:40311.

1:54:42>> Correct. With uh Director Morris's

1:54:46inputs that he presented tonight

1:54:49>> and adding also Perea in mind on the

1:54:51stop and frisk and uh taking into

1:54:53consideration the similar process to the

1:54:55U visa.

1:54:56>> Okay. Further analyzing policy 311

1:54:58adding Commissioner Mia and Pria and

1:55:01with Jack's um comments.

1:55:06>> Okay. Um Commissioner Gansky,

1:55:09>> yes. [clears throat]

1:55:10>> Commissioner Mia,

1:55:12>> yes.

1:55:13>> Commissioner Pereia,

1:55:14>> yes.

1:55:15>> Uh Commissioner Vega,

1:55:18>> yes.

1:55:19>> Vice Chair Casil Loftton,

1:55:20>> yes.

1:55:21>> Chair Carpenter,

1:55:23>> yes. Okay, that is six eyes, zero nays,

1:55:28one absence, uh with commissioner say

1:55:30not here. Motion carries.

1:55:33>> Thank you. All righty. That brings us to

1:55:36the end of the business calendar. Um now

1:55:38we'll go to staff comments. Deputy city

1:55:41manager, do you have any closing

1:55:42comments?

1:55:43>> No comments. Thank you, commissioners.

1:55:45>> Thank you,

1:55:47>> Director Morris. Any closing comments?

1:55:49>> Nothing from me. Thank you.

1:55:51>> Oh, thank you.

1:55:53Assistant of city attorney.

1:55:55>> Yes. Thank you, chair. Just a brief

1:55:56update. Um I wanted to update the

1:55:58commission regarding commissioner Perez

1:56:02uh council member or council member

1:56:04commissioner requested item from last

1:56:06month regarding the statistics for SAPD

1:56:08lawsuits aggregating all that data. So

1:56:11we had success um interfacing with our

1:56:14third party administrator. There were a

1:56:16lot of documents, a lot of data to to

1:56:19kind of sift through to to receive. We

1:56:21had to wait for them to get it to us,

1:56:23received it. We're we're currently still

1:56:25sifting through it, generating all the

1:56:27figures and the numbers that were

1:56:28requested in that item. Um, I am still

1:56:31confident that we will have uh at least

1:56:34a preliminary report available for the

1:56:36November meeting.

1:56:38>> Thank you,

1:56:41Deputy Chief. Any comments?

1:56:44>> Well, Commander Lopez, but thank you.

1:56:46>> I'm sorry. [laughter]

1:56:49I just pro I just gave you a promotion.

1:56:51You should be thankful.

1:56:52>> Thank you. Uh with that, really no

1:56:53comments, but I will invite uh all the

1:56:55commissioners to our trunk or treaty

1:56:57event, which will be this uh October the

1:56:5922nd.

1:57:00>> Thank you.

1:57:02All righty. Now, it's time for

1:57:04commissioner comments. We'll start with

1:57:06Commissioner Grosski and work our way

1:57:07across.

1:57:08>> Okay. Keep working your way across.

1:57:11>> Nothing.

1:57:11>> No, I'm fine. Thank you.

1:57:12>> Commissioner Vegan,

1:57:14>> nothing for me,

1:57:16Vice Chair.

1:57:18Just want to thank the oversight

1:57:19director for the presentation. It was

1:57:21very helpful and um and everybody else

1:57:24for being here. Thank you.

1:57:25>> Thank you. Commissioner M.

1:57:29>> Commissioner Pereira.

1:57:31>> Thank you, Chair. I guess the the news

1:57:33headlines tomorrow will be the police

1:57:35over commissioner chair announced a new

1:57:37chief of police. Just kidding.

1:57:39[laughter]

1:57:40Uh I do I do have a question uh

1:57:42assistant uh city attorney Martinez

1:57:45regarding uh the action that the city

1:57:47council took on um this past uh Tuesday.

1:57:51I believe the city council approved an

1:57:53independent investigation hiring a third

1:57:56party contractor for a recent um police

1:58:00uh incident. Um is that an

1:58:03administrative uh investigation?

1:58:07So, it is an investigation that is

1:58:10authorized under section 1100 of the

1:58:12charter. Um, I don't have the exact

1:58:15language in front of me. I could pull it

1:58:16up if you'd like, but I believe that

1:58:18that provision is is dealing with an

1:58:22investigation that looks into the

1:58:25customs, the policies, the practices of

1:58:28uh an employee or surrounding an event

1:58:30that that involves an employee or an

1:58:33officer or any uh person related to the

1:58:35city. uh so it is not a classic

1:58:39administrative investigation like one

1:58:41which would be run by say internal

1:58:43affairs. So in that in that instance

1:58:46what will be the difference between

1:58:48let's say what we do at the police

1:58:51commission and then what that that is

1:58:54>> uh can you repeat that I'm sorry

1:58:58>> yeah I'm just wondering like the type of

1:59:00investigations that the police or

1:59:01commission it's allowed to direct to for

1:59:04the um director to conduct are

1:59:06administrative right and so I'm just

1:59:08trying to figure out what the difference

1:59:10is between what the city is doing with

1:59:13an indep independent uh investigation

1:59:15and then what will typically the police

1:59:18oversight commission will do.

1:59:20>> I can't as I sit here right now opine on

1:59:24the investigation that was authorized

1:59:25under section 1100 by the city council.

1:59:28All I can tell you is that the the this

1:59:32commission's investigation should an

1:59:35investigation arise could ultimately

1:59:37give rise to a recommendation made to

1:59:40the police chief or the city manager.

1:59:42Right. regarding possible discipline,

1:59:44regarding possible other measures,

1:59:46whatever is authorized under the

1:59:48ordinance pertaining to this body's

1:59:50authority, but at this time I can't

1:59:52opine on that section 1100 because I

1:59:54don't know I simply don't know the

1:59:56result of that.

1:59:57>> Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to

1:59:58get some some idea because I was a bit

2:00:01um just curious.

2:00:05>> Thank you. All righty. Um yes, thank you

2:00:08for the report. It was it was good to

2:00:10see. Hey, I'm glad we're going to have a

2:00:11further discussion on that. Uh, great

2:00:13point you brought up and I hope we can

2:00:15get that policy updated also. And again,

2:00:19thank you for everybody for showing up

2:00:20tonight. And we'll call it at Oops, wait

2:00:25a minute. I forgot something. My

2:00:26apologies.

2:00:28The next Police Oversight Commission

2:00:29meeting is scheduled for Thursday,

2:00:31November 12th, 2026 in the council

2:00:33chamber at 5:00 pm. I hereby adjourn the

2:00:36meeting at 7:03 Yeah.