SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A judge has dismissed a lawsuit that was brought by the police union regarding pre-text traffic stops, stating he found "legal defects" in the union's arguments against the stops.
As a result, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will continue its policy that limits traffic stops for minor infractions. In 2023, San Francisco's police commission passed a policy that once implemented, restricted police officers from using pre-text stops — a practice of stopping drivers for things like a broken taillight to question them or search their cars for criminal activity, Mission Local reported.
According to the police commission, those types of stops are disproportionately used against people of color, and limiting them has reportedly been shown to reduce racial disparities in policing. Since the inception of the new policy, the police union opposed it and in October 2024, filed a lawsuit.
The lawsuit claimed that the policy prevented offices from obeying the state vehicle code, which it said should take precedence over city policy. The lawsuit stated that the defendants — the city, the police commission, and then-Police Chief Bill Scott — were prohibited from enacting policy on matters covered within the vehicle code.
However, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Joseph M. Quinn ruled against the union, stating that its lawsuit "failed to identify a single case" in which obeying the vehicle code would prevent officers from following the pretext stop policy.
The pretext stop policy brought the police commission to the forefront of city politics in 2024 and spurred the highly funded Proposition E in March 2024. The passing of that proposition limited the commission's powers and reduced its oversight of the San Francisco Police Department.
When he came into office, Mayor Daniel Lurie removed police commission Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone, who led the charge to limit pretext stops. Proposition E passed and Carter-Oberstone was ousted, and now with the judge dismissing the lawsuit — the pretext stop policy remains in effect.
"Judge Quinn elegantly debunked the POA's radical and unprecedented legal theory," Carter-Oberstone said. "I hope the elected officials who have been breathlessly touting how much crime is down don't forget to credit a policy that has saved thousands of officer hours that would have otherwise been wasted on worthless stops that have never served a legitimate public safety purpose," he added.
Quinn wrote in his ruling that cities are within their rights to curb officer discretion. "Policies that limit officer discretion are often essential to fair and lawful police operations," the judge wrote.
Under the pretext stop policy, officers are no longer able to stop drivers solely for a shortlist of infractions like missing a front license plate, recently expired registration tags or a single broken taillight, but may still pull over a driver for more serious infractions.
The policy also restricts officers from asking investigatory questions or requesting to search a car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime.
As a result, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) will continue its policy that limits traffic stops for minor infractions. In 2023, San Francisco's police commission passed a policy that once implemented, restricted police officers from using pre-text stops — a practice of stopping drivers for things like a broken taillight to question them or search their cars for criminal activity, Mission Local reported.
According to the police commission, those types of stops are disproportionately used against people of color, and limiting them has reportedly been shown to reduce racial disparities in policing. Since the inception of the new policy, the police union opposed it and in October 2024, filed a lawsuit.
The lawsuit claimed that the policy prevented offices from obeying the state vehicle code, which it said should take precedence over city policy. The lawsuit stated that the defendants — the city, the police commission, and then-Police Chief Bill Scott — were prohibited from enacting policy on matters covered within the vehicle code.
However, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Joseph M. Quinn ruled against the union, stating that its lawsuit "failed to identify a single case" in which obeying the vehicle code would prevent officers from following the pretext stop policy.
The pretext stop policy brought the police commission to the forefront of city politics in 2024 and spurred the highly funded Proposition E in March 2024. The passing of that proposition limited the commission's powers and reduced its oversight of the San Francisco Police Department.
When he came into office, Mayor Daniel Lurie removed police commission Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone, who led the charge to limit pretext stops. Proposition E passed and Carter-Oberstone was ousted, and now with the judge dismissing the lawsuit — the pretext stop policy remains in effect.
"Judge Quinn elegantly debunked the POA's radical and unprecedented legal theory," Carter-Oberstone said. "I hope the elected officials who have been breathlessly touting how much crime is down don't forget to credit a policy that has saved thousands of officer hours that would have otherwise been wasted on worthless stops that have never served a legitimate public safety purpose," he added.
Quinn wrote in his ruling that cities are within their rights to curb officer discretion. "Policies that limit officer discretion are often essential to fair and lawful police operations," the judge wrote.
Under the pretext stop policy, officers are no longer able to stop drivers solely for a shortlist of infractions like missing a front license plate, recently expired registration tags or a single broken taillight, but may still pull over a driver for more serious infractions.
The policy also restricts officers from asking investigatory questions or requesting to search a car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2025-10-05T12:55-0400 | Comment by: Ken
The SFPOA failed to make the correct cogent argument here and as a result, the people who live , work, and visit SF are in greater danger offing a victim of crime. People of color ARE NOT stopped disproportionately in SF and an investigation by NBC News showed that. This is the argument that SFPOA should have made : Ask this question first of those who are opposing good placing: "Would you please identify which and how many victims of crime should not have their crimes investigated by the police, nor receive justice for the crimes committed against them?" Get them on the record with their answer..including the judge. Next, go through the crime statistics as presented by NBC Bay Area News during an in depth investigation they conducted a few years ago where they went through every crime report for the City and County of San Francisco for over a year and found the following: 40.2% of ALL CRIME VICTIMS described their assailant/perpetrator as being Black. Next, do the math to find that 40.2% of the 59,872of the Black perpetrators (as described by crime victims) equals 24,069. The Black male population of SF at the time was approximately 2.75% of 885,000 residents or 24,338. The jail population was 474 black male inmates at the time. 474 out of 24,069 is not an excessive amount. The SFPOA should be doing this research for every year to show how many crimes remain unsolved and that there is no disparity against POC when you look at the facts. In addition, the "study" presented by the other side failed to eliminate from their database the statistics for Black arrestees who do not live in SF. This failure skews the statistics upward when compared to the stated population. If 1,000 arrestees are from other cities, then those should be removed from any table so one can get a true picture of how many Black SF residents are stopped. The question should also be asked is this: Should the SFPD assist other jurisdictions in solving crimes committed elsewhere or just let them go when they are encountered. If an Oakland suspect shoots someone on Broadway and races across the Bay Bridge to SF, should SFPD try to apprehend the suspect or let him go?