Police Commission Opens Path for DPA at SFO Shooting Scenes

The San Francisco Police Commission spent its longest debate on Oct. 21, 2026, on a narrow question: who gets to investigate when an SFPD officer fires a weapon at the airport. Commissioners voted 5-0 to send a rewrite of the department's shooting-investigation order to meet and confer, with compromise language that lets the Department of Police Accountability seek access to scenes at SFO from San Mateo County authorities. Around that vote, victim advocates, Trans March critics and civilian oversight data all pushed the same theme: residents and city partners want proof that oversight is working.

---

• DGO 8.11 advances 5-0 with new language on DPA access to SFO shootings
• Sexual assault kit report filed on a 3-2 vote as commissioners demand an SVU presentation
• Trans March community meeting set for Nov. 24, but critics object to the delay and venue
• DPA complaints up about 75% in two years, with 307 filed in the third quarter

---

Airport Shootings Test Civilian Oversight

The basics: Department General Order 8.11 governs how SFPD investigates officer-involved shootings (OIS) and firearm discharges. Meet and confer is the required labor consultation step before a revised order can take effect.

Why it matters: The order had not been updated since September 2005. The rewrite sets how civilian oversight works when an SFPD shooting happens at SFO, which sits in San Mateo County, outside San Francisco's legal jurisdiction.

Where things stand: Lieutenant Lisa Springer, officer in charge of SFPD's Internal Affairs Division, said the draft reflects the current memorandum of understanding with the district attorney, California Department of Justice involvement, updated interview procedures and the San Mateo County district attorney's authority over airport shooting scenes.

"The department received 26 comments during the public review process, which prompted additional revisions before leadership review," said Springer. SFPD also asked commissioners to approve revised definitions for OIS and officer-involved discharges (OID), along with a change to section C4 on firearm retention.

The DPA's objection: A DPA representative flagged airport language stating that DPA lacks automatic jurisdiction to investigate shootings at SFO or on surrounding San Mateo County property under the administrative code. When Commissioner Cindy Elias asked, "Do you have the requested edits that you would like to make?" the representative proposed that "DPA should be notified and may respond to the scene of any OIS at SFO consistent with its response to other OIS incidents." The representative said that access would protect DPA's ability to promptly use its investigative authority if someone files a complaint.

DPA Director Henderson said the practice is already established. She told commissioners she has personally responded to airport shootings "for the past at least 10 years, because I have been the one that has gone out to the airport."

The other side: Commissioners worried the language promised something San Francisco cannot deliver. "That's their jurisdiction as a matter of law," said Commission President C. Don Clay.

Commissioner Wilson Leung said the word "may" was the problem: "that implies that we've already given permission when permission rests with San Mateo."

An SFPD policy presenter added that "notifications aren't outlined in this particular DGO". The presenter said notification procedures sit in a draft unit order instead.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: Leung offered the compromise: DPA "may seek access from the appropriate authorities in San Mateo County." The motion to advance DGO 8.11 as amended, including SFPD's definitions and the C4 change, passed. (For: 5, Lowe, Leung, Elias, Tekkey, Clay; Against: 0.)

The result gives DPA written recognition of its role at airport shootings without claiming authority San Francisco lacks. It leaves actual access dependent on San Mateo County, and it keeps notification rules in an SFPD unit order that commissioners do not vote on directly.

What's next: The order goes to meet and confer. DPA was asked to submit its written comments to the commission office.

---

Trans March Critics Get a Date, Not a Truce

Why it matters: Public comment returned again and again to SFPD's response at this year's Trans March. Speakers framed the commission's handling of the issue as a test of whether the oversight body is asking hard questions.

Where things stand: Police Chief Derrick Lew announced the community meeting critics had demanded: "So we have set a date. It'll be Tuesday, November 24th at 6 PM at Police Headquarters."

The response was mixed. One public commenter welcomed the date but said scheduling took a month and a half. The commenter identified the venue as 850 Bryant and said "this location carries itself a great deal of gravity, fear, and trauma for a lot of my community." The same speaker argued police are not always the right responders. The speaker criticized SFPD training, citing the Mission Station youth training and the Mission Dolores Hillbomb event, and said officers at Trans March lacked LGBTQ-related training.

The other side: Another commenter faulted commissioners themselves for not questioning SFPD statements about dispersal orders at Stud Alley. "Why do we still not know how many officers were present during that 22-minute active enforcement window at Trans March?" the commenter asked. The speaker also criticized a recently passed surveillance-related order and the lone vote against it.

During the DPA report, a commenter asked whether Trans March complaints were filed mostly in the second or third quarter. Henderson declined to say: "I don't want to guess because some came in in Q2, some came in in Q3."

Other voices: John Sawoya, a public commenter, alleged wrongful arrests, involuntary holds, a false gun charge by a Tenderloin captain and falsified reports. He said DPA had not responded to seven of his cases. A District 10 commenter acknowledged citywide crime declines but said the neighborhood safety plan's shared metrics and quarterly reports do not appear to be in place. "The 2023 evaluation itself noted the lack of a clear scorecard or required measurement schedule," the commenter said.

What's next: The Trans March community meeting is set for Tuesday, Nov. 24, at 6 p.m. at Police Headquarters.

---

Split Vote on Rape Kit Report

Why it matters: The chief described SFPD's sexual assault closure rates as half the national average. The Board of Supervisors is already applying pressure: a speaker noted that Supervisor Myrna Melgar is drafting a resolution.

Where things stand: The semi-annual sexual assault evidence kit report, covering Jan. 1 through June 30, 2026, was pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. City victim-services leaders thanked SFPD leadership but asked for more. "One of the things that we would like to request is that there is a full hearing on those recommendations," said Ivy Lee, director of the Mayor's Office for Victims' Rights. Lila Carrillo, director of the Sexual Harassment Assault Response and Prevention Office (SHARP), stressed "how important it is to have a full discussion and conversation around this report."

Commissioner Pratibha Tekkey asked for a Special Victims Unit (SVU) presentation: "Hopefully we'll see Captain Toomey here so to do the presentation before the end of the year." "Yeah, Commissioner, we can put that together," replied Lew.

Lew cited commitments from the recent Board of Supervisors hearing: tighter administrative controls and supervision, regular meetings with advocates and a better audit process. "Our closure rates being half the national average, those are matters of concern for me," he said.

The other side: Commissioner Lowe voted no "because I think it would be good to have that presentation before we accept the report." Elias also voted no and gave no stated reason.

Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The motion to receive and file passed. (For: 3, Leung, Tekkey, Clay; Against: 2, Lowe, Elias.) Survivors and advocates did not get a formal hearing on the report itself. They did get a public commitment to an SVU presentation, which gives commissioners a venue to check whether the promised reforms are happening.

What's next: An SVU presentation is expected before year-end.

---

Oversight Complaints Climb

Where things stand: DPA received 307 complaints in the third quarter of 2026. "That's an increase of over 17%," said Henderson, comparing the figure with the second quarter. Complaints are up about 75% from the third quarter of 2024.

DPA launched an automated, printable weekly activity report translated into 15 languages. That week's report showed 17 new cases and 21 closed. Henderson also described station visits to explain the discipline process and a presentation at NACOLE, a national civilian oversight conference.

Why it matters: Rising complaint volume, combined with commenter allegations of unanswered cases, puts DPA's own capacity under the same scrutiny it applies to SFPD.

---

Minor Items

• DGO 3.01 (written directives) adopted, effective Dec. 7. (For: 4; Against: 1, Elias.) Meet and confer produced no amendments.
• DGO 6.05 (death cases) adopted 5-0, effective Dec. 7. It now requires a field supervisor to authorize officers leaving a death scene.
• DGO 5.14 (interagency operations) advanced 5-0 to meet and confer. Captain Mason said "this was last updated in 1995" and described the revision as a streamlining.
• Chief's crime numbers: Part 1 crime is down 17% year to date. Violent crime is down 10%, property crime is down 19%, and homicides are flat at 22.
• Closed session: Commissioners voted 5-0 to discuss Item 12 privately, then voted 5-0 not to disclose the discussion.

---

Looking Ahead

Clay said a city attorney expert will "give us a primer on the next steps for setting up an evaluation process for our commission," targeted for late November or early December. SFPD's Medal of Valor event is set for Nov. 4.