SAN FRANCISCO, CA - The San Francisco Board of Police Commissioners is facing a lawsuit from the San Francisco Police Officers Association seeking to reverse a Commission policy curtailing police officers' authority to conduct traffic stops.
As The San Francisco Chronicle reported, the police union is seeking to reverse the policy enacted by a narrow margin in early 2024 designed to prevent officers from pulling over drivers on lower-level offenses.
In particular, the policy refers to infractions including driving with expired tags, using broken tail lights, having objects hanging from the rearview mirror, failing to illuminate the rear license plate, failing to use a turn signal, sleeping in a vehicle, and, startlingly, "any stop of a pedestrian for an infraction in violation of the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code," unless there is an immediate danger.
The commission's policy refers to reducing what it calls pretext stops, which are when an officer initiates a traffic stop as a pretext to launch a greater investigation into a subject on suspicion of an unrelated crime. The policy, known as Department General Order 9.07 "deprioritizes" nine different "low-level traffic offenses," according to The Daily Journal.
In the text of the order, it states, "The goal of this General Order is to curtail the practice of stopping vehicles for low-level traffic offenses as a pretext to investigate hunches that do not amount to reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred."
The policy claims, "Pretext stops are disproportionately carried out against people of color and return negligible public safety benefits. The fiscal, human, and societal costs they impose on our City are unjustified in light of more effective public safety tools at the Department’s disposal."
The lawsuit hinges on the argument that officers’ legal authority to conduct stops for traffic offenses, even small ones, is “well-established” under legal precedents and argues further that the city policy conflicts with the California Vehicle Code which denies local government the authority to enact any ordinance that overlaps any offenses already covered under the code.
The union is requesting an injunction against the policy, effective since June, to pause its enforcement until the lawsuit is settled.
As The San Francisco Chronicle reported, the police union is seeking to reverse the policy enacted by a narrow margin in early 2024 designed to prevent officers from pulling over drivers on lower-level offenses.
In particular, the policy refers to infractions including driving with expired tags, using broken tail lights, having objects hanging from the rearview mirror, failing to illuminate the rear license plate, failing to use a turn signal, sleeping in a vehicle, and, startlingly, "any stop of a pedestrian for an infraction in violation of the California Vehicle Code or San Francisco Transportation Code," unless there is an immediate danger.
The commission's policy refers to reducing what it calls pretext stops, which are when an officer initiates a traffic stop as a pretext to launch a greater investigation into a subject on suspicion of an unrelated crime. The policy, known as Department General Order 9.07 "deprioritizes" nine different "low-level traffic offenses," according to The Daily Journal.
In the text of the order, it states, "The goal of this General Order is to curtail the practice of stopping vehicles for low-level traffic offenses as a pretext to investigate hunches that do not amount to reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred."
The policy claims, "Pretext stops are disproportionately carried out against people of color and return negligible public safety benefits. The fiscal, human, and societal costs they impose on our City are unjustified in light of more effective public safety tools at the Department’s disposal."
The lawsuit hinges on the argument that officers’ legal authority to conduct stops for traffic offenses, even small ones, is “well-established” under legal precedents and argues further that the city policy conflicts with the California Vehicle Code which denies local government the authority to enact any ordinance that overlaps any offenses already covered under the code.
The union is requesting an injunction against the policy, effective since June, to pause its enforcement until the lawsuit is settled.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments