Disciplinary Penalty & Referral Guidelines for Sworn Members of the San Francisco Police Department

Revised February 10, 2021

I. PURPOSE

These guidelines are presented as examples of the factors the Chief of Police and the Department of Police Accountability (“DPA”) will consider in determining the charges for instances of misconduct. This will also serve as a guide when considering the classifications of misconduct, and appropriate penalties for sustained violations. The Disciplinary Penalty and Referral Guidelines will enhance consistency and assist in determination of appropriate and reasonable penalties. For purposes of these guidelines the term “employee” means sworn member of the San Francisco Police Department.

II. REFERRAL TO THE FULL COMMISSION

Under San Francisco Charter section A8.343, the Chief may impose discipline of up to a 10-day suspension on allegations brought by the Internal Affairs Division or the DPA. Employees disciplined at the Chief’s level, except for written reprimands, may appeal that discipline to the Police Commission. Written reprimands may be appealed to the Department.

Some allegations of employee misconduct, even on a first offense, are so serious that the public interest is best served by presenting them to the Commission for hearing and determination. Additionally, depending on the severity of the offenses, the accused employee’s disciplinary history, the number of violations included in the allegation as well as other factors, the Chief or the DPA may elect to file charges with the Police Commission. Any discipline sought must be consistent with principles of just cause and progressive discipline.

III. REVIEW OF SUSTAINED ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT

The suggested penalties are intended for guidance but are not binding. The referral guidelines are meant merely as a guide or starting point for assessing the appropriate level of discipline and should not be employed in a mechanical fashion. Fairness, consistency, and clearly-stated expectations make discipline tenable in large organizations. The attached matrix is intended to aid the Department, the DPA, and the Police Commission in the fulfillment of these tenets. It identifies ranges of possible penalties for various acts of employee misconduct with increasing levels of severity based on recurrences, consistent with principles of progressive discipline.

An offense is considered a first offense when it is formally documented that the Department attempted to correct the employee’s undesirable conduct. An offense should be considered a second or third offense only when it is of the same general nature as the previous misconduct. The offenses need not be identical. Additionally, the period of consideration for prior offenses shall be seven years from the date the previous discipline was issued.

A penalty matrix cannot address all potential misconduct. As such, when recommending the appropriate discipline, the assessment should be reasonable in light of the employee’s disciplinary history (or lack thereof), the facts unique to each case, and mitigating and aggravating factors.

Recommended discipline should normally fall within the range determined by the matrix, provided that it is consistent with principles of progressive discipline and supported by evidence establishing just cause for the recommendation. However, the matrix is ultimately only a guideline and not a mandate. Disciplinary recommendations shall consider mitigating and aggravating factors as outlined below. Such factors may justify a disciplinary recommendation that falls outside of the matrix or establish the appropriate penalty within the matrix. The maximum suspension an employee may receive per sustained allegation is ninety (90) days. (DGO 2.07; City Charter A8.343).

The following mitigating factors shall be considered:
 

• The misconduct was not willful or deliberate;
• The misconduct was not premeditated;
• The misconduct did not result in unwarranted injury or harm;
• The misconduct involved minor negligence or recklessness;
• The employee had a secondary or minor role in the misconduct;
• The employee’ may not have reasonably understood the consequences of his or her actions due to inexperience or lack of training;
• Commendations and other positive work reviews the employee has received;
• The employee was forthright and cooperative during the investigation;
• The employee is remorseful and has taken steps to self-correct;
• The employee reported the harm caused by the rule violation, or independently initiated steps to mitigate it; and
• The employee has not been disciplined for misconduct within the seven years preceding the incident.

The following aggravating factors shall be considered:
 

• The misconduct was willful and deliberate;
• The misconduct involved gross negligence or recklessness;
• The misconduct was premeditated;
• The employee had a primary or leadership role in the misconduct;
• The employee should have known that his or her actions were inappropriate based upon training or experience;
• The employee was not forthright or truthful during the investigation;
• The misconduct was motivated by bias and/or discrimination that is unlawful or is prohibited by Department policy.
• Serious consequences occurred or may have occurred from the misconduct;
• The misconduct was committed with malicious intent or for personal gain;
• The misconduct resulted in unwarranted injury;
• Multiple sustained findings from incident;
• The employee has a history of prior discipline within seven years; or
• The misconduct negatively impacted the Department’s reputation, credibility or mission or diminished public confidence in the Department.

The aforementioned factors are not exhaustive. Any relevant aggravating or mitigating factor may be considered.

In cases involving multiple violations, those recommending discipline should base their decision on the most serious single sustained violation. Other sustained rule violations should be considered aggravating factors which may elevate the final disciplinary recommendation.

IV. MEDIATION

Mediation is an alternative way of resolving complaints about police conduct. The DPA has a mediation program that enables complainants to resolve their issues with the accused employee in a face to face dispute resolution process involving a trained mediator. The goal of the program is to bring together the involved parties in an effort to achieve mutual understanding. Mediation is limited to eligible cases as determined by the DPA and must be agreed to by both the complainant and the accused employee. Cases that are successfully mediated are not considered disciplinary proceedings in an employee’s record.

Department employees and the DPA are encouraged to take advantage of mediation when feasible.