Joint Response to Public Comment Pursuant to DGO 3.01.04(D)
DGO 2.05 Citizen Complaints Against Non-Sworn Members
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.
| # | PUBLIC COMMENT | DATE RECEIVED | SFPD RESPONSE | SFPD EXPLANATION | DPA EXPLANATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Should read "All complaints received about non-sworn members will be routed by the senior-ranking officer on duty in the station...to the Internal Affairs Division..." so that it is not confusing if IAD or the station is reviewing [2.05.02] | 10/10/25 | Recommendations will be modified and included in the draft DGO | The paragraph has been reworded and merged into the procedures section of the document to provide more clarity and avoid confusion. "Section now reads: "Route the memorandum through the chain of command to IAD." (2.05.03.A.2) | No additional comment provided. |
| R2 | Are only citizens allowed to file complaints against non-sworn members of the Police Department? | 10/10/25 | Recommendation has been included in draft DGO | This DGO specifically concerns public complaints. The term citizen has been removed to align with the style used throughout Department General Orders. Someone who wishes to file a complaint against a coworker may do so through internal processes with their supervisor and/or HR. | No additional comment provided. |
| R3 | This section says that the Department employee will route the complaint to IAD but the policy section says the senior-ranking officer will. Who routes the complaint? [2.05.03 A3] | 10/10/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | This section needed clearer language and procedures. Routing instructions now read: "Route the memorandum through the chain of command to IAD. " (2.05.03.A.2) Supervisors are now designated as the personnel responsible for receiving and documenting the initial complaint. (2.05.02.B) | No additional comment provided. |
| R4 | How does IAD know which complaints are "station-level"? Is it IAD's discretion to make that choice? [2.05.03 B1] | 10/10/25 | Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO | The Officer in charge of IAD has the discretion to refer cases back to the members commanding officer for a station/unit level investigation. Additional detail are contained in "A Guide to Station Level IAD Investigations 5.2020" | No additional comment provided. |
| R5 | What is the Guide to Station Level IAD Investigations and where can it be found? It is not a Manual and is not posted anywhere. | 10/10/25 | Administrative Question and Answer-not for inclusion in DGO | The guide is accessible by employees in PowerDMS and is titled "A Guide to Station Level IAD Investigations 5.2020." | No additional comment provided. |
| R6 | Change Necessitating to Requiring or Needing [2.05.03 C] | 10/10/25 | Recommendation has been included in draft DGO | The prior title did not properly capture the information found in that section. Title has been reworded to "Complaints Requiring Immediate Notifications" (2.05.03.B) | No additional comment provided. |
| R7 | In Section C, is the officer conducting the immediate investigation the one who took the report, the one from IAD, or the officer in charge of the employee the complaint is against? | 10/10/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | The policy section was amended to make it clear that a supervisor is the person handling the complaint. "Supervisors are the personnel responsible for receiving and documenting the initial complaint." (2.05.02.B) | No additional comment provided. |
| R8 | In C 1 a-c, are there additional procedures that are needed to be followed as in DGO 2.02/2.03? In these instances, who needs to be notified? If the additional procedures for these instances are not listed here, where are they? | 10/10/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | The following notifications were added to the section: "Notify the next higher ranked officer in the chain of command." "Notify the OIC of IAD directly or the Captain of Risk Management. " (2.05.03.B) | No additional comment provided. |
| R9 | Is IAD tasked with writing the final disposition letter in addition to delivering it? If not, who is? If the complaint is criminal nature, what are the procedures since they are not listed? Or which DGO are they located in? | 10/10/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | Language has been modified to say that IAD will complete the final disposition letter and provide it to all parties. (2.05.03.D) | No additional comment provided. |
| R10 | This sentence seems unnecessary: "If the complaint could be about a sworn member, follow the procedures outlined in DGO 2.04, Complaints against Officers". Seems common sense. It should just start with: "Take the details of the complaint as follows: [2.05.03A] | 11/10/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | Information regarding complaints against sworn members has been removed. Complaints against sworn members are governed by Department General Order 2.04, which immediately precedes this order and establishes a separate complaint process. As noted in public comment, including references to that directive in the body of this order creates confusion and is unnecessary. | No additional comment provided. |
| R11 | "for review" the way it's written is confusing as to if the internal affairs division reviews the complaint or the senior-ranking officer on duty reviews it [2.05.02 Policy section) | 11/13/25 | Recommendation will be modified and included in the draft DGO | The Department agrees. The sentence has been removed. | No additional comment provided. |
| R12 | This seems very vague, "If the complaint could be about a sworn member..." What if it's not? [2.05.03A.2] | 11/13/25 | Recommendation will not be included in Draft DGO | Information regarding complaints against sworn members has been removed. Complaints against sworn members are governed by Department General Order 2.04, which immediately precedes this order and establishes a separate complaint process. As noted in public comment, including references to that directive in the body of this order creates confusion and is unnecessary. | No additional comment provided. |
| R13 | Should the procedure be stated or referenced is the complaint is criminal in nature? [Disposition] | 11/15/25 | Recommendation will not be included in Draft DGO | Criminal conduct and the immediate procedures related to it have been added to the "Complaints Requiring Immediate Notifications" section. (2.05.03.B) | No additional comment provided. |