Joint Response to Public Comment Pursuant to DGO 3.01.04(D)

DGO 5.08 Plainclothes, Non-Uniformed, and Undercover Officers

September 12, 2025

SFPD Department General Order (DGO) 3.01 requires that all policies under development be posted publicly to provide members of the public thirty (30) business days to submit policy recommendations.

Pursuant to DGO 3.01.04 (D), the Department and the Department of Police Accountability (DPA) jointly prepare a public response, which shall be posted on the Department’s website, outlining the recommendations included and not included in the DGO draft submitted to the Police Commission.

Joint responses are captured in the following recommendation grid which captures the original recommendation, whether the recommendation was included or not included in the draft DGO, and the explanation relating to the decision to include or not include the recommendation into the draft DGO.

The Department reserves the right to remove or not respond to comments if they are: 

  • Unrelated to the subject of the DGO
  • Include private personal information (whether the commenter’s or someone else’s), including home address, home or cell phone number, personal e-mail address, or personal identification.
  • Include profanity or obscene language

The Department received 49 recommendations for DGO 5.08, Plainclothes, Non-Uniform, and Undercover Officers from the public. DPA has no comment on the Department’s responses.

The Department and DPA extend gratitude to all who took the time to contribute recommendations to this policy.

DGO 5.08 Non-Uniformed Officers - Public Comment Joint Responses | Public Review Period: 1/31/25 - 3/21/25

  • R1

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.02: the policy section is too long and not clear. There is no statement to hold members accountable here except maybe the last sentence. 

    Date Received
    1/31/2025

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The Policy statement has been revised to state "Non-uniformed and plainclothes members shall identify themselves as Police Officers when enforcement action is taken, be properly equipped, and ensure their actions align with all Department policies.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R2

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.03 All definitions are too long. how many of them are definitions that employees don't already know?

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Definitions for words not used in the policy or that are unnecessary have been removed. The Definition section includes: Non-uniformed, Plainclothes, and Undercover.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R3

    Public Comment
    A lot of this is specific to units and not general. it shouldn't be in a DGO.

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been modified so that it matches the Department's mandate to make general orders more general and is applicable to most department members.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R4

    Public Comment
    Due to the wording I have no idea what changes are proposed. But 10 years ago SFPD had only ~100 more officers & wrote 2-3,000 tickets a month. Today it’s dozens. Outside of homicide, SFPD has the worst closure rate in the state. How do you spend your day

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    This comment is not related to the DGO. Community members may view SF crime data here - https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crimedashboard.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R5

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.02: Requiring a Deputy Chief's approval is impractical, as they are far removed from daily operations. The Captain directly oversees the unit, so approval at that level is more efficient and aligns with operational realities.

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The policy has been amended. Enforcement action using plainclothes and non-uniformed members is approved by the Lieutenant if it is in the pre-plan, and by the Sergeant if necessary while in the field (5.08.04(2)).

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R6

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.04: Policy repeatedly references “planned enforcement action” without defining it. Since the term is overly broad and could encompass many types of daily/routine actions, it should be clearly defined.

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Any sections speaking to "planned enforcement action" have been revised.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R7

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.04: Subordinate plainclothes officers w/o initial direct supervision/supervisor should be allowed to respond to certain crimes in progress at a surveillance capacity without a Op plan to assist uniformed officers.

    Date Received
    1/31/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Nothing in the DGO stops a plainclothes member from acting in a
    surveillance capacity. If taking enforcement action, plainclothes
    members are required to follow 5.08.04.A(1), which says they
    must verbally identify themselves, display their star, and activate
    their BWC.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R8

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.04(A): The phrase "in lieu" in sub. (4) is misleading. A written op order numbering multiple pages is the Dept's definitive written plan as ref in sub. (1). "In lieu" implies that an op order is different than a written plan, and in context,

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    This section has been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R9

    Public Comment
    Definitions: Please mirror the definition of "violent misdemeanor" that is used in 5.05 and reference the list of examples.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will not be included in Draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R10

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.04: Documentation can be anywhere, CAD, BWC, incident report, CHRON, after action report. What is important is that its documented, not where it is documented.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Text modified throughout to say "Rationale must be documented".

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R11

    Public Comment
    5.08.04(D) .. unclear how e. and f. are not already encompassed into a.-d. this list is very long, we can shorten it and make it concise.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    This section has been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R12

    Public Comment
    5.08.02 Policy: This section is super wordy and vague.
    Remove most of the first paragraph in this section.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R1.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R13

    Public Comment
    Some of these definitions are used in other DGOs, should these instead be in DGO 3.02?

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R9.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R14

    Public Comment
    These are procedural and administrative. Besides general considerations, these should not be in a DGO.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been modified so that it matches the Department's mandate to make general orders more general.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R15

    Public Comment
    The first two paragraphs in this section, 5.08.04C, seem wordy and unnecessary.

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been amended for clarity. The paragraphs in 5.08.04.C have been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R16

    Public Comment
    I am not sure that all the information in 5.08.06 is aligned with other SFPD policies

    Date Received
    2/3/25

    SFPD response
    Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The section on BWCs has been removed. Information about BWC has been incorporated into relevant sections throughout the DGO.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R17

    Public Comment
    section 5.08.07 should not be in this DGO

    Date Received
    2/21/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will not be included in Draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO on crowd control specifically states that information regarding non-uniform members is located in DGO 5.08, therefore this information must be included in this DGO.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R18

    Public Comment
    remove definitions for member and exigent circumstances - those definitions should be included in DGO 3.02 instead

    Date Received
    2/24/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R19

    Public Comment
    policy is too long; should be the actual requirements officers are being held to

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been modified so that it matches the Department's mandate to make general orders more general.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R20

    Public Comment
    definitions are too long; are all of them needed? F, G, H should not be defined at minimum. Probably E

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R21

    Public Comment
    5.08.04(A): do all of these details need to be given in the policy? Is there not anything about what a written operation plan is supposed to entail listed elsewhere?

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been amended for clarity and overly specific details have been removed. Operation orders are used throughout the department and not just with non-uniformed operations, so this information does not need to be included here.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R22

    Public Comment
    should be shorter and not in paragraph format

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been amended so it is not in paragraph form.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R23

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.06: is this covered in 10.11?

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    DGO 10.11 Body Worn Cameras, states that non-uniformed officer BWC use is governed by DGO 5.08.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R24

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.11: sounds like something that should be in a more detailed order, not general policy.

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Duties of Supervisor has been modified to apply only to this DGO.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R25

    Public Comment
    BWC information should not be in this DGO.

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will not be included in Draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R23.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R26

    Public Comment
    5.08.02 Policy: this doesn't say a policy that non uniform officers are supposed to follow. there is no shall statement

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R1.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R27

    Public Comment
    exemptions should have their own section at the bottom of
    the policy

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Exceptions have been included at the bottom of this DGO and now state "A. Deputy Chiefs may approve deviations from this policy for specific units, operations, or events. Approved deviations shall be documented. B. Members assigned to the Mayor’s Detail/Dignitary Protection are exempt from this policy but shall be guided by their specific Unit Orders."

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R28

    Public Comment
    Sec. 5.08.03(A): does definition need to say where the person works? is that the only unit that is non-uniformed, or only place where it is allowed? if not, then remove.

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Bureau name has been removed. The definition for non-uniformed member now reads "A sworn member who is not wearing a SFPD uniform while on-duty. Non-uniformed members are typically investigators or perform administrative functions for the Department and do not actively participate in enforcement actions."

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R29

    Public Comment
    5.08.03(E): Remove

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R30

    Public Comment
    5.08.03(F): Remove

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R31

    Public Comment
    5.08.03(G): Remove

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R32

    Public Comment
    5.08.03(H): Remove

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R33

    Public Comment
    there is a table under definitions that isn't a definition. do police officers need this example? if so, put it somewhere else.

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The referenced table has been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R34

    Public Comment
    5.08.04(A): taken directly from unit orders - does it need to be in the policy?

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The information about the Written Operation Plan is used in many instances therefore has been removed. It will remain in a Unit order.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R35

    Public Comment
    5.08.04 A says "shall" but then 5.08.04 A(4) says you can use op orders instead

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The Written Ops Plan section has been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R36

    Public Comment
    written in paragraph form not policy

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been amended to remove all paragraph formatting.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R37

    Public Comment
    5.08.04(B): as is written, doesn't make sense; not clear

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    5.08.04 (Considerations when Planning/Deciding on Enforcement Action) has been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R38

    Public Comment
    5.08.04 (C): written in paragraph form. first paragraph has sentences that are not enforceable and are values statements.

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Unenforceable language that is not helpful to members has been removed, as well as all paragraph formatting.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R39

    Public Comment
    Whole DGO: can the words be decreased so its easier to tell what officers are supposed to do/follow

    Date Received
    2/25/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been modified for clarity.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R40

    Public Comment
    5.08.03 Definitions: Vague and contradictory: A. Non-Uniformed - "...where their primary duty is to investigate crimes..." and B. Plainclothes - "... conducts investigations..." and yet, "... non-uniformed member is not working in a plainclothes or undercover capacity.

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R2.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R41

    Public Comment
    Nine pages of procedure and shalls. What happened to becoming more concise and GENERAL?

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been amended for clarity and overly specific details have been removed. The draft is now 4 pages.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R42

    Public Comment
    The use of "Shall... unless a supervisor..." tells me the directive is a "should." Should we word those procedures differently? Yes.

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Unnecessary "shall's" have been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R43

    Public Comment
    5.08.06 BWC Use by Non-Uniformed Officers: Since this section is specifically addresses Plainclothes (and Non-
    Uniformed Members is a separate definition), shouldn't this be entitled "BWC Use by Plainclothes Members?" Then it begs the question, what about Non-Uniformed Members?

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R16.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R44

    Public Comment
    This DGO is much too procedural. If a section contains the phrase, "when practical" or "when feasible," then it needs to be removed from the DGO and placed in a manual. These are General Orders for all law enforcement.

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Unnecessary "shall's" have been removed.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R45

    Public Comment
    5.08.09 COMPLYING WITH UNIFORMED MEMBERS: This title needs to be edited: "Complying with Uniformed Officers or Law Enforcement", not "Members." What happens if the Plainclothes cop is out of county? The outside jurisdiction officer isn't exactly a "member" are they?

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Section (now 5.08.07) title has been amended to "Complying with Law Enforcement Officers"

    SFPD Explanation
    Language has been amended for clarity. Undercover has been moved as a subset of plainclothes members. Therefore, all reference to "plainclothes" also includes "undercover" unless specifically stated otherwise.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R46

    Public Comment
    5.08.09 COMPLYING WITH UNIFORMED MEMBERS: This section addresses Non-uniformed members specifically. What about Plainclothes members? You created these two separate definitions and created inconsistency. The LETTER OF THE LAW will hold these cops accountable for the inconsistency.

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Language has been amended for clarity. Undercover has been moved as a subset of plainclothes members. Therefore, all reference to "plainclothes" also includes "undercover" unless specifically stated otherwise.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R47

    Public Comment
    The Table offers examples, but why? The fact that you've included the statement, "A narcotics officer is not always undercover, nor is a homicide investigator always nonuniformed" negates the necessity of the table. At what point do the definitions swap

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The table has been removed from the DGO.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R48

    Public Comment
    This ENTIRE DGO is fine if you removed everything except the Purpose, Policy, Vehicle Stops, and a shortened Equipment section. All the rest is covered in the Plainclothes training, which not everyone needs to know or take.

    Date Received
    3/3/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    The DGO has been revised for clarity.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment

  • R49

    Public Comment
    5.08.02 POLICY: I don't see where a policy is clearly stated. I don't understand what the actual policy is.

    Date Received
    3/10/25

    SFPD response
    Recommendation has been included in draft DGO

    SFPD Explanation
    Please refer to R1.

    DPA Explanation
    No comment