SFPD Seeks Public Comment on Updated Drone and Interagency Policies

The San Francisco Police Department is soliciting public feedback on updated general orders for Unmanned Aircraft Systems operations and interagency operations, and it says comments can be submitted via an online portal. The department’s announcement references two formal Exigency Reports to the Board of Supervisors titled “Exigency Report to the Board of Supervisors Re. Interagency Incident Response and Use of Unmanned Aerial Support on November 13, 2023” and “Exigency Report to the Board of Supervisors Re. Interagency Operation and Use of Unmanned Aerial Support on December 6, 2023.”

SFPD materials point readers to its transparency pages, including the instruction “Visit the SFPD Flock Transparency Portal” and the Drone webpage text “Visit the Drone webpage to learn more about how these tools are supporting San Francisco police officers.” The draft rule identified for review appears under the title “Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Proposed Law Enforcement Equipment Use Policy Proposed Law Enforcement Equipment Use Policy ” as presented in the department’s posting.

The legal backdrop cited by the department is San Francisco’s 2019 Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance, referred to repeatedly as 19B. As the department’s copy states, “In 2019, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed the Acquisition of Surveillance Technology Ordinance banning the use of Facial Recognition Technology, with limited exceptions, and requiring public posting of current surveillance technologies in possession or use by city departments.” The ordinance also dictates the approval chain: “19B requires each policy to be approved by the COIT, City Department, the Mayor, the City Attorney and the Board of Supervisors.”

SFPD and city texts tie the proposed UAS policy to Government Code 7072 reporting obligations. The posted requirements say the annual UAS equipment report shall include, at a minimum, “A summary of how the UAS was used and the purpose of its use,” “A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the UAS equipment,” and “The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the UAS use policy, and any actions taken in response.” The department’s language further lists cost and inventory items including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and “The quantity possessed,” and asks whether “SFPD intends to acquire additional UAS equipment in the next year and the quantity sought.”

Transparency statements in the SFPD texts set limits and access rules: “No record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or some other statute,” and explicitly, “UAS data associated with a criminal investigation will not be accessible to the public. Members of the public can submit a public information request. The Department will defer to general counsel and the SFPD legal unit to determine whether the request can be fulfilled.”

Operational safeguards and procedural descriptions included in the materials and in secondary analysis note training and deployment controls. As one summary states, “Only trained and certified personnel can operate the drones,” and “Comprehensive training programs are in place for both operators and visual observers.” Deployment rules referenced include “Critical incident requests for drone deployment follow the Department General Order 8.01 process,” and “Other requests are routed through the Department Operations Center (DOC), with the UAS Program Manager or designee making the final decision on deployment.” The materials also assert that “Operators have the authority to decline missions based on safety or policy concerns” and that “There are strict prohibitions against using drones for non-law enforcement purposes, infringing on First Amendment rights, or equipping them with weapons.”

The SFPD page inventory names other technologies alongside UAS, including “Under Door Camera,” “Vertmax Camera,” and Flock Safety, and reiterates that “The San Francisco Police Department uses Flock Safety technology to capture objective evidence without compromising on individual privacy” and that the department “utilizes retroactive search to solve crimes after they've occurred.” For questions or to submit a written allegation of violation of 19B the department’s posting includes the obfuscated contact line: “If you have questions or concerns about any of the above-listed technologies or want to submit a written allegation of violation of 19B, please contact (/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d1e0b1d090e2524282b0d3e2b2a223b63223f2a).” Emergency and public contact numbers listed are 9-1-1, non-emergency 1-415-553-0123, and City Services & Questions 3-1-1.

The SFPD’s solicitation of comment and the referenced Exigency Reports from November 13, 2023 and December 6, 2023 will feed into the 19B and COIT approval path that requires sign-off by COIT, the Mayor, the City Attorney and the Board of Supervisors, and the department’s posting reiterates the statutory requirement that within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual UAS equipment report pursuant to Government Code 7072, “SFPD shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community meeting through the Police Commission at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual UAS Equipment report and SFPD’s funding, acquisition, or use of equipment listed [...]” The Exigency Reports and the proposed “Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Proposed Law Enforcement Equipment Use Policy Proposed Law Enforcement Equipment Use Policy ” are now part of the record as city oversight bodies consider next steps.