San Francisco’s Betrayal: City Offers $53 Incentive to Keep Deputy Sheriffs

In a shocking turn of events, the City and County of San Francisco has revealed its true colors in the latest contract negotiations with Deputy Sheriffs. Despite years of dedicated service and sacrifice, Deputy Sheriffs are being offered a meager 1% longevity incentive if they continue to work past 20 years.

This offer is not just insulting; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety and security of San Francisco’s residents. While Deputy Sheriffs are offered a mere $53 per paycheck to delay their well-deserved retirement, the City has shown a stark contrast in its treatment of other departments.

In 2023, Dispatchers were given a 5% longevity incentive, totaling over $1.5 million distributed to eligible dispatchers, to retain them from retiring. The police department fared even better, with an additional 13% in longevity incentives, totaling a staggering $65.85 million distributed to eligible officers.

With 160 Deputy Sheriffs eligible to retire this year after dedicating at least 20 years of their lives to serving and protecting the City, the City’s offer is not just a slap in the face; it’s a betrayal of trust. It sends a clear message that the City does not value the contributions and sacrifices of Deputy Sheriffs.

Moreover, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) is facing a severe staffing shortage, currently short-staffed by -178 deputy sheriffs. This shortage has led to overworking of Deputy Sheriffs with forced overtime, putting additional strain on an already taxed workforce.

Adding to the problem is San Francisco’s notoriously long and slow hiring process. What will San Francisco do when $53 dollars a paycheck does not retain Deputy Sheriffs from retiring? The consequences could be catastrophic. The courts could come to a grinding halt, jails could become out of control, inmates and employees would be at risk, and there would be fewer deputies on the streets for public safety. The entire system could collapse under the weight of these challenges.

It’s time for the City to wake up and recognize the dedication and commitment of Deputy Sheriffs. They deserve a fair and respectful longevity incentive that reflects their years of service and ensures the continued safety of San Francisco. Anything less is a disgraceful betrayal of those who put their lives on the line every day to keep our city safe.

 

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Condemns Misconduct by Public Defender’s Office in Domestic Violence Case

San Francisco, CA – Feb. 22, 2024 – The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) is deeply troubled by the recent revelations of misconduct within the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office in the case of Jordana Cahen, a survivor of domestic violence. An investigative report by ABC7 News I-Team’s Dan Noyes uncovered disturbing actions by Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez, which included victim-blaming and unethical behavior.

The SFDSA condemns the actions of the Public Defender’s Office and Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez in their handling of this case. Survivors of domestic violence deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion, and to have their voices heard in the pursuit of justice. The conduct of the Public Defender’s Office in this case falls far short of these standards and is unacceptable.

Public Defender Mano Raju‘s apparent indifference to the misconduct within his office is also deeply concerning. As a leader in the legal profession, Raju has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. His failure to address the serious ethical violations and boundary violations committed by his office is unacceptable.

The SFDSA calls for accountability and reform within the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office to ensure that survivors of domestic violence receive the support and advocacy they deserve. It is essential that all individuals involved in the legal profession are held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.

The SFDSA stands in solidarity with Jordana Cahen and all survivors of domestic violence. We will continue to advocate for justice and support for survivors in our community.

Contact:
Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation: Addressing San Francisco’s Illegal Drug Use Problem

In recent years, San Francisco has faced a growing challenge with illegal drug use, particularly with highly addictive and deadly substances like “tranq” Xylazine and Fentanyl. These drugs have contributed to an alarming number of drug overdose deaths, highlighting the urgent need for effective interventions to address this public health crisis. As the city seeks solutions, one approach gaining attention is the concept of Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation. This method involves providing rehabilitation programs within the criminal justice system, utilizing the resources of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) to offer a controlled environment for individuals with substance use disorders to receive treatment and support.

 

Tranq Zombie Drug

 

The key to this approach lies in recognizing the intertwined nature of substance abuse and criminal behavior. Many individuals who engage in illegal drug use find themselves caught in a cycle of addiction and criminal activity, often leading to incarceration. Traditional punitive measures, such as imprisonment without addressing the underlying issues, have proven ineffective in breaking this cycle. Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation seeks to address both the criminal behavior and the root cause of substance abuse through a comprehensive program.

The SFSO plays a central role in this approach by leveraging its resources and expertise to create an environment conducive to rehabilitation. Deputy Sheriffs, who are already responsible for maintaining order and security within jail facilities, can be trained to provide support and guidance to individuals with substance use disorders. By working closely with trained professionals, participants in the program can access a range of services tailored to their needs, including counseling, medical treatment, and vocational training.

One of the key advantages of Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation is its ability to provide a structured and supervised environment for individuals to address their substance abuse issues. Unlike traditional treatment programs that rely on voluntary participation, this approach offers a more controlled setting where participants are encouraged to engage in treatment and are held accountable for their progress. By integrating rehabilitation into the criminal justice system, the program can also ensure that individuals receive the support they need while serving their sentences, increasing the likelihood of successful reintegration into society upon release.

Moreover, Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation can be a cost-effective solution for San Francisco. By addressing substance abuse issues within the criminal justice system, the program has the potential to reduce recidivism rates, leading to long-term savings associated with lower incarceration and criminal justice costs. Additionally, by breaking the cycle of addiction and criminal behavior, the program can contribute to a safer and healthier community, benefiting the city as a whole.

Importantly, this system is designed not only to address the substance abuse issues but also to attend to the overall well-being of the individuals in the program. Participants will have access to healthcare, including medical and mental health services, to address any underlying health conditions or mental health needs. They will also receive clean clothing, access to bathing facilities, and a clean environment, promoting hygiene and overall health. Deputy Sheriffs will ensure their safety, creating a secure environment conducive to recovery.

Given the grave risks associated with drugs like “tranq” Xylazine and Fentanyl, providing a comprehensive program like Incarceration-Based Rehabilitation is crucial for keeping individuals alive and getting them on the path to recovery. By offering a holistic approach that addresses both the substance abuse issues and the broader needs of the individuals, this system has the potential to make a significant impact on the lives of those struggling with addiction in San Francisco. Will San Francisco value human life and do this to stop the cycle of addiction and overdose deaths? 

The Case for Entry-Level Signing Bonuses for New Recruits

In the dynamic world of law enforcement, it’s essential to continuously seek innovative approaches to bolster our teams. Building upon the recent discussion of signing bonuses for experienced officers, let’s consider the potential impact of offering an entry-level signing bonus, set at a competitive $35,000.00, for aspiring law enforcement recruits. While this proposed bonus may not match the scale of those provided to lateral hires, its potential in attracting and cultivating a dedicated and enthusiastic new wave of recruits cannot be overlooked.

entry level sign on bonus

 

The introduction of this entry-level signing bonus serves as a testament to our commitment to nurturing a diverse and resilient law enforcement community, one that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our neighborhoods. By attracting and supporting a fresh influx of recruits, we anticipate a significant increase in the number of deputy sheriffs and police officers. This surge in manpower holds the promise of heightened public safety and enhanced care for our communities.

Moreover, as we welcome more staff into our ranks, we anticipate a reduction in overtime and a decrease in the exhaustion experienced by our current deputies and officers. This shift not only promotes a healthier and more sustainable work environment but also ensures that our dedicated law enforcement professionals can carry out their duties effectively and with a renewed focus on serving our communities.

As we contemplate this proposal, it is evident that our dedication to exploring innovative recruitment strategies remains unwavering. By extending a helping hand to the next generation of law enforcement professionals, we are taking vital steps toward building a more secure and safer tomorrow for the communities we serve. San Francisco needs to implement Sign On Bonuses Now!

Mayor London Breed’s Controversial Defunding of San Francisco’s Law Enforcement

In the heart of San Francisco, a maelstrom of controversy has emerged, centered around Mayor London Breed’s persistent efforts to curtail the city’s law enforcement capabilities. From her early career as a member of the Board of Supervisors to her current mayoral tenure, Mayor Breed’s commitment to dismantling the criminal justice system has remained a focal point. Despite her intentions to reform, recent actions have evoked questions about the implications of her approach on public safety and the city’s security landscape.

A Legacy of Reform:
Mayor Breed’s crusade against the traditional incarceration system, stemming from personal experiences with incarcerated individuals, has been a driving force behind her political career. Her 2015 declaration to dismantle the system of mass incarceration signified a radical departure from conventional policies, setting the stage for a series of transformative changes within San Francisco’s criminal justice system.

 

Shifting Priorities in San Francisco:
San Francisco has long been recognized for its progressive criminal justice approach, emphasizing rehabilitation over imprisonment. However, the city’s recent shift toward diverting criminals from traditional incarceration has sparked public outcry. The surge in open-air drug dealing and drug-related fatalities has highlighted the limitations of this lenient approach, leading to a palpable sense of insecurity within the community.

Ambiguous Stance and Public Backlash:
Amid mounting pressure, Mayor Breed’s attempts to increase law enforcement presence have been met with skepticism. Despite minor increases in the jail population, street-level crime rates remain alarming, calling into question the city’s commitment to public safety. The city’s reputation as one that uses leniency without firm enforcement has intensified public frustration and concern.

The Defunding Declaration and Contradictory Actions:
Mayor Breed’s 2020 endorsement of the nationwide movement to defund the police marked a significant turning point in San Francisco’s law enforcement landscape. Despite subsequent attempts to present herself as pro-public safety, her decisions to freeze deputy sheriff and police hiring in 2022 and allocate $120 million from law enforcement to the African American community in 2021 indicate a consistent trend of budget cuts and reallocation, casting doubts on the city’s ability to maintain law and order.

The Sheriff’s Office’s Struggle:
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has found itself in a precarious position, grappling with diminished resources and a surge in criminal activity. Mayor Breed’s persistent budget cuts and policy shifts have strained law enforcement capabilities, leaving the city more vulnerable to crime. The reduction in law enforcement officers and the introduction of civilian-led crisis teams have brought into question the effectiveness of Mayor Breed’s reformist approach.

 

Civilianization of Law Enforcement and Its Implications:
The city’s embrace of civilian-led initiatives has drawn attention to the broader ideological conflict between reformist agendas and the imperative of upholding public safety. While proponents argue for a more community-oriented and empathetic policing approach, critics highlight the inadequacy of such strategies in addressing the complex challenges of urban safety, as evidenced by the continued prevalence of crime and insecurity on San Francisco’s streets.

Silent Defunding and Unaddressed Police Shortages:
Board of Supervisor Safai exposed Mayor London Breed for quiet cutting.  Recent revelations have shed light on Mayor Breed’s discreet budgetary maneuvers, including the failure to increase the Police Department’s recruitment budget despite multiple requests from Police Chief Scott. This inaction has left the SF Police Department with a significant shortage of 700 officers, highlighting the consequences of silent defunding on law enforcement capabilities and public safety.

 

Mayor London Breed’s fervent commitment to reforming San Francisco’s criminal justice system has resulted in a contentious and turbulent period for the city’s law enforcement agencies. While her advocacy for reform and resource reallocation aligns with progressive ideologies, the adverse impact on public safety and the growing concerns about the city’s security underline the pressing need for a balanced approach that prioritizes both reform and the maintenance of law and order. As San Francisco continues to grapple with rising crime rates, the imperative for a comprehensive and sustainable strategy that addresses both community needs and public safety remains paramount.

San Francisco’s Task Force Launch Sparks Questions Over Sheriff Miyamoto’s Omission

In the latest effort to combat the fentanyl crisis in San Francisco, Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor London Breed announced the establishment of a joint law enforcement task force. However, the absence of Sheriff Paul Miyamoto and his department from this crucial collaboration has led to discussions and concerns about the comprehensiveness of the initiative and its potential impact on effective law enforcement coordination.

Governor Newsom and Mayor Breed emphasized the urgency of the fentanyl crisis and the need to hold those involved in drug trafficking accountable. The newly formed task force, which includes the San Francisco Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the California Highway Patrol, and the California National Guard, aims to handle opioid-related deaths as homicide cases, demonstrating a unified approach to addressing the devastating effects of fentanyl on the local community.

Gov Newsom and Mayor Breed Excluded SF Sheriff
Gov Newsom and Mayor Breed Excluded SF Sheriff

Sheriff Paul Miyamoto’s exclusion from the task force, despite the active involvement of his deputies in patrolling and making arrests in the Tenderloin and SOMA areas, addressing the fentanyl crisis, has raised questions about the decision-making process and the potential implications for effective collaboration among law enforcement agencies. The Sheriff’s Department’s hands-on experience and in-depth understanding of the local communities could significantly contribute to the overall effectiveness of the task force’s operations and strategies.

Critics have also questioned the participation of the California Highway Patrol and the California National Guard, highlighting the importance of including the Sheriff’s Department, actively engaged in tackling the fentanyl crisis on the ground in the Tenderloin and SOMA areas. The exclusion of the Sheriff’s Department has prompted concerns about the comprehensive approach of the task force in addressing the fentanyl crisis, especially considering the experience and contributions that the Sheriff’s Department could offer.

As San Francisco continues to grapple with the far-reaching consequences of the fentanyl crisis, the inclusion of all key stakeholders, including the Sheriff’s Department, remains crucial. A collaborative and inclusive approach is essential to effectively address the challenges posed by the fentanyl crisis and ensure the safety and well-being of the community. It is imperative for local authorities to foster transparent communication and a spirit of cooperation among all law enforcement agencies to effectively tackle the ongoing crisis.

Mayor London Breed’s Strained Relations with Sheriffs Fuel Taxpayer Costs and Public Safety Imbalance in San Francisco

Mayor London Breed’s contentious relationship with the Sheriff’s office in San Francisco has not only sparked a series of lawsuits but has also triggered a financial burden on taxpayers, amplifying concerns about public safety and the welfare of incarcerated people within the county jails. The repercussions of Mayor Breed’s alleged hostility towards the Sheriffs have become increasingly evident, as budget cuts and staffing shortages have resulted in deteriorating jail conditions, mounting legal battles, and a glaring imbalance in the city’s public safety funding.

The degrading conditions within the county jails have prompted a wave of lawsuits filed by prisoners, highlighting the pervasive issues of poor living standards, compromised safety measures, and the absence of adequate healthcare provisions. These legal actions underscore the distressing impact of the Mayor’s purported animosity towards the Sheriff’s office, revealing a systemic neglect of fundamental human rights and a failure to uphold the basic standards of inmate welfare.

Compounding these concerns, the chronic understaffing of deputy sheriffs has not only jeopardized the safety of law enforcement personnel but has also significantly hindered the Sheriff’s office’s ability to ensure the well-being and security of incarcerated people. With the Mayor’s persistent cuts to the Sheriff’s budget, the hiring process has slowed down, at times even halting, exacerbating the strain on an already burdened system and amplifying the risks faced by both inmates and deputies.

 

As a result of these troubling circumstances, the city has faced mounting legal fees and settlements, as lawsuits filed by inmates continue to surface, with many resulting in successful verdicts against the city administration. The financial implications of these legal battles have created a substantial burden on taxpayers, underscoring the urgent need for a comprehensive reassessment of the city’s approach to public safety funding and correctional facility management.

Furthermore, the stark contrast in budgetary allocations, with the Sheriff’s office facing funding cuts while the police and fire departments enjoy increased financial support, has raised questions about the Mayor’s priorities and the equitable distribution of resources. This unbalanced approach to public safety budgeting has not only widened the gap between various law enforcement entities but has also significantly strained the city’s resources, forcing taxpayers to bear the brunt of mounting legal costs and compromised public safety standards.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative for city officials to prioritize the restoration of a balanced and collaborative approach to public safety funding and jail facility management. Addressing the grievances between the Mayor’s office and the Sheriff’s office, along with a comprehensive overhaul of budget allocations, is crucial to ensuring the effective functioning of the jail system and the overall well-being of all residents in San Francisco. Only through a concerted effort to bridge the gap and foster a unified approach to public safety can the city begin to mitigate the financial strain and uphold the rights and dignity of its residents.

Home Detention “a Fugazzi, a Fugazzi”

In the city and county of San Francisco, the criminal justice system has become the subject of increasing scrutiny and skepticism. Critics argue that the consequences for criminal behavior appear to be nothing more than an illusion, a “fugazzi,” because the system lacks effective monitoring and enforcement. This article delves into the troubling aspect of consequences that seem unreal because of inadequate monitoring, highlighting the challenges and their implications.

The Illusion of Electronic Monitoring

One of the most prominent issues plaguing San Francisco’s criminal justice system is the illusion of effective electronic monitoring. At first glance, it may appear as though individuals on electronic ankle monitoring are being closely supervised. However, the reality paints a very different picture.

  1. Overburdened deputies: Shockingly, one to two deputy sheriffs is assigned to monitor a staggering 500 criminals on electronic ankle monitoring. This workload is simply unmanageable, rendering the supervision of these individuals inadequate and ineffective.
  2. Escaping accountability: The consequence of such an imbalanced caseload is that many individuals on electronic monitoring can easily exploit their freedom and continue to engage in criminal activities without consequence. This creates an illusion of accountability rather than genuine supervision.

The Unseen Outstanding Warrants

Outstanding warrants are another area where the illusion of accountability reigns supreme. While there is a unit responsible for seeking out and apprehending individuals with outstanding warrants, the numbers don’t add up.

  1. Understaffed unit: The Warrants Service Unit operates with just five deputies, which is grossly insufficient to effectively manage and address the growing number of outstanding warrants.
  2. The accumulation of warrants: Due to the lack of resources and personnel, the unit is unable to promptly locate and apprehend individuals with outstanding warrants. This results in a significant backlog, which further erodes the credibility and effectiveness of the system.

A Consequence Mirage

The consequences of criminal behavior in San Francisco, such as pretrial diversion, electronic monitoring, and outstanding warrants, seem like a mirage because of a lack of real monitoring and enforcement. This has several notable implications:

  1. Erosion of public trust: As the public becomes increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of the system, trust in the criminal justice system is significantly eroded. When individuals perceive that there are no meaningful consequences for criminal behavior, it can lead to disillusionment and a lack of confidence in the system’s ability to protect the community.
  2. Escalating crime rates: The absence of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms can embolden individuals to continue criminal activities with a reduced fear of being held accountable. This can lead to an increase in crime rates and potentially harm public safety.

San Francisco’s criminal justice system is grappling with an alarming issue: the consequences for criminal behavior often appear to be an illusion, a “fugazzi,” due to a lack of effective monitoring and enforcement. The overburdened deputies and understaffed units in charge of oversight and apprehension have created a situation where individuals can exploit the system with impunity.

Addressing this problem is not only a matter of restoring public trust but also ensuring the safety of the community. Adequate resources, funding, and staffing are essential to transform these illusions of consequences into a reality where accountability is swift and certain. Without such changes, the mirage of consequences will continue to undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system in San Francisco.

San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: A Balancing Act with Limited Resources and the Mayor’s Funding Failure

San Francisco’s criminal justice system is grappling with a multifaceted crisis, characterized by a significant imbalance in resource allocation, challenges in monitoring pretrial diversion and electronic monitoring, and the persistent issue of outstanding warrants. A critical element that exacerbates this problem is the Mayor’s apparent failure to adequately fund the Sheriff’s Office, which is tasked with managing these critical aspects of the criminal justice system. This article delves deeper into these issues, highlighting the impacts of inadequate funding on the functioning of the system.

A Strain on Sheriff’s Office Resources

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office plays a pivotal role in overseeing pretrial diversion programs, electronic monitoring, and the apprehension of individuals with outstanding warrants. However, the Sheriff’s Office has been grappling with resource shortages that severely hamper its effectiveness.

Electronic Monitoring Oversight

Perhaps one of the most glaring issues is the overwhelming caseload faced by a mere one to two deputy sheriffs per shift responsible for monitoring 500 individuals on electronic ankle monitoring. This stark imbalance between the number of offenders and the personnel assigned to oversee them has several consequences:

  1. Inadequate supervision: The limited number of personnel makes it exceedingly difficult to ensure effective supervision and compliance with the terms of electronic monitoring. This raises concerns about the potential for offenders to exploit these conditions or reoffend without proper oversight.
  2. Rehabilitation and reintegration: The objective of electronic monitoring programs, which is to support rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society, becomes questionable when the sheer caseload makes individualized attention and support nearly impossible.

The Overburdened Warrants Service Unit

The Warrants Service Unit, tasked with actively seeking out and apprehending individuals with outstanding warrants, operates with just five deputies. The implications of this understaffing are far-reaching:

  1. Limited apprehension capacity: With a minimal workforce, the unit struggles to locate and arrest individuals with outstanding warrants in a timely manner. This undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
  2. Accumulating warrants: The challenges faced by the Warrants Service Unit contribute to the mounting number of outstanding warrants, leaving many individuals unaccounted for and the public at risk.

Mayor’s Failure to Fund

2023 San Francisco budget

It is imperative to address the core issue: the Mayor’s apparent failure to allocate adequate funding to the Sheriff’s Office. This funding deficiency exacerbates the problems within the criminal justice system, resulting in an imbalanced workload for deputies, an ever-increasing number of outstanding warrants, and the erosion of public trust.

The implications of this funding shortfall are clear:

  1. Reduced public safety: Inadequate funding of the Sheriff’s Office directly impacts the safety of San Francisco’s residents. Insufficient resources hinder the effective supervision and apprehension of offenders.
  2. Strain on law enforcement: Deputies are faced with insurmountable caseloads, making it nearly impossible for them to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. This, in turn, affects the quality of rehabilitation programs and the timely apprehension of individuals with outstanding warrants.

San Francisco’s criminal justice system grapples with severe challenges, primarily due to the lack of funding for the Sheriff’s Office. The Mayor’s failure to address this issue has far-reaching consequences, leading to imbalanced workloads, a growing number of outstanding warrants, and a loss of public trust. Addressing this problem requires a fundamental reevaluation of resource allocation and a commitment to bolstering the Sheriff’s Office’s capabilities. It is crucial to bridge this funding gap to ensure that the criminal justice system can meet its core objectives while safeguarding the interests of the community.

Ensuring Public Safety: The Vital Need for Armed Peace Officers in the Medical Examiner’s Office

SF Medical Examiner Investigator In recent times, the role of peace officers within the Medical Examiner’s Office has come under scrutiny. The issue at hand revolves around the authorization for these peace officers to carry firearms on duty. Our union, recognizing the potential risks and the impact on public safety, initiated a letter correspondence with the Medical Examiner’s Office. This article delves into the critical importance of arming these peace officers and highlights our recent response to address the matter.

The Medical Examiner’s Office plays a crucial role in investigating deaths and providing critical insights into the causes. However, it is essential to acknowledge that these investigations often take place in challenging environments, including high crime areas. The presence of peace officers within the Medical Examiner’s Office is not a mere formality; it serves as a vital component in ensuring the safety of all involved.

Our Initial Request: Recognizing the potential dangers faced by Medical Examiner Investigators, our union penned a letter to the Medical Examiner’s Office, urging them to authorize peace officers to carry firearms on duty. We highlighted the detrimental impact of disallowing these peace officers from being armed and emphasized the negative implications on public safety. It was our firm belief that by granting them the ability to carry firearms, we could enhance their capacity to respond to emergencies, protect themselves, and effectively fulfill their responsibilities.

The Medical Examiner Office’s Response: In their response, the Medical Examiner’s Office downplayed the peace officerCA Peace Officer Standards and Training designation within their agency and did not even acknowledge that they have California Peace Officer Standard of Training Certification, emphasizing their civilian-led approach. While we appreciate their perspective, it is crucial to recognize that peace officers play a pivotal role in enforcing laws, protecting the public, and responding to emergencies. Dismissing their authority and the need for them to be armed undermines their effectiveness and compromises the safety of both the investigators and the communities they serve.

In our recent response to the Medical Examiner’s Office, we reiterated the criticality of authorizing peace officers within the Medical Examiner’s Office to carry firearms on duty. We emphasized that this decision was not a form of defunding police power but rather a proactive measure to enhance public safety. By enabling our Medical Examiner Investigators to be armed, we ensure they have the means to protect themselves, others, and intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Moreover, it alleviates the burden on local law enforcement agencies, enabling them to allocate resources more efficiently.

The ongoing dialogue between our union and the Medical Examiner’s Office highlights the pressing need to address the issue of arming peace officers within the Medical Examiner’s Office. It is vital to recognize that public safety should always remain a top priority. By granting peace officers the ability to carry firearms, we can ensure the safety of our investigators and enhance their effectiveness in responding to emergencies. It is our hope that the Medical Examiner’s Office will reevaluate their stance and take decisive action that aligns with the shared commitment to public safety.

Together, let us work towards a safer future, where peace officers in the Medical Examiner’s Office can perform their duties without compromising their safety or the safety of the public they serve.

Ken Lomba
President, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Representing the OCME Investigators
(415) 696-2428