Tag: San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs

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.

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.

Unmasking Mayor London Breed’s Aggressive Defunding of San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office

In the heart of San Francisco’s ever-shifting political landscape, a storm of controversy is brewing. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is facing a stark and troubling reality – a calculated series of budget cuts and policy shifts that paint a disturbing picture of Mayor London Breed’s unwavering campaign to defund law enforcement in the city. In this article, we’ll meticulously dissect the timeline of events that make a compelling and nuanced case for the Mayor’s relentless assault on the city’s law enforcement agencies.

A History of Radical Reform

Mayor London Breed’s political journey began as a member of the Board of Supervisors, and from the very beginning, she made it clear that she was on a mission to overhaul what she perceived as a deeply flawed criminal justice system. Her 2015 statement sent shockwaves through the city, as she passionately declared her intent to “tear down the system of mass incarceration.” This declaration was not a mere political posture; it was deeply personal, rooted in her familial ties to individuals behind bars.

 

San Francisco’s Unique Approach Scrutinized

San Francisco has long prided itself on its progressive approach to criminal justice, prioritizing rehabilitation over incarceration. The city’s history has been punctuated by numerous chances given to offenders, emphasizing diversion programs and alternatives to conventional incarceration. However, this progressive leniency took an unprecedented turn when the city began diverting criminals away from traditional imprisonment. This drastic shift triggered widespread public outrage, driven by the brazen open-air drug dealing and an alarming surge in drug overdose deaths.

Mayor Breed’s Inconsistent Stance

Amid mounting public pressure, Mayor Breed reluctantly increased the presence of law enforcement on the city’s streets. However, her efforts appeared lukewarm at best, and the city continued to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures. This approach left San Francisco with a troubling reputation – a city that wields the carrot without ever brandishing the stick. While the jail population did see a marginal increase from its lowest point two months prior, street-level crime continued unabated, further casting doubts on the city’s commitment to public safety.

The Mayor’s Bold 2020 Pro-Defunding Declaration

In 2020, Mayor Breed publicly embraced the nationwide call to defund the police, aligning herself with a movement that sought to reallocate funds away from law enforcement. This audacious proclamation heralded a seismic shift in the city’s approach to public safety and hinted at her intentions to fundamentally reshape the foundations of law enforcement in San Francisco.

Mixed Signals in 2022

However, as the year 2022 dawned, Mayor Breed deftly pivoted her public messaging to appear more pro-public safety, even as her actions told a different story. She imposed a nine-month freeze on deputy sheriff and police hiring, a decision that severely impacted staffing numbers, rendering the city more vulnerable to crime.

Budgetary Maneuvers Speak Volumes

Budget allocations often serve as a clear reflection of a leader’s priorities. In February 2021, as part of the budget process, Mayor Breed orchestrated a staggering redirection of $120 million from law enforcement to investments in the African American community. This financial maneuver underscored her commitment to resource reallocation.

In 2023, Mayor Breed’s office continued to raise eyebrows with significant slowdowns in the hiring process, a subtle but potent form of budget reduction. In April of the same year, she denied a longevity incentive designed to retain deputy sheriffs, despite a glaring shortage in the ranks. In July, she initially proposed a 5% budget cut to the Sheriff’s Office but ultimately executed a 2.5% reduction. And in September, it came to light that funding for crucial law enforcement tools like body cameras, tasers, and ammunition had been mercilessly slashed.

 

The Sheriff’s Office’s Apprehensive Response

In the face of relentless budget cuts and policy shifts, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office finds itself not only stunned but deeply concerned, particularly in the context of soaring crime rates plaguing the city. It appears that Mayor Breed’s actions are inextricably linked to her personal commitment to criminal justice reform, resulting in a reduction in law enforcement officers and an aggressive push for the civilianization of the police.

 

 

 

The Civilianization of Law Enforcement: Aligning with the Extreme Left’s Agenda

One prominent shift that has sent shockwaves through the San Francisco law enforcement landscape is the introduction of street crisis teams composed of Urban Alchemy workers, who now act as first responders in select situations. This marked transition towards civilianization of certain aspects of law enforcement has not only raised eyebrows but also drawn attention to its alignment with the extreme left’s agenda for criminal justice reform.

It is no secret that progressive elements on the political spectrum have long advocated for the civilianization of law enforcement, viewing traditional policing as inherently flawed and overly punitive. San Francisco’s embrace of this approach reflects a broader ideological shift, where the emphasis on community-based solutions and de-escalation tactics takes precedence over traditional law enforcement methods.

However, all one has to do is look around San Francisco to see that this approach is not working. The city’s streets are marred by open-air drug dealing, rampant crime, and a palpable sense of insecurity among its residents. Critics argue that while civilianization may have noble intentions, it has resulted in a system ill-equipped to address the complex and persistent challenges of urban safety.

While proponents argue that civilianizing law enforcement can lead to more empathetic and community-oriented policing, critics express concerns about the potential ramifications on public safety and law enforcement effectiveness. The debate over the civilianization of law enforcement is emblematic of the larger struggle between reformist ideologies and the need for maintaining public safety—a battle that is currently playing out in San Francisco’s streets and city halls.

Conclusion: A Critical Crossroads

The mounting evidence leaves little room for doubt – Mayor London Breed’s relentless assault on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is not just a byproduct of her commitment to criminal justice reform; it’s a calculated and multifaceted agenda. As the city grapples with these complex issues, the delicate balance between reform and public safety teeters on a precipice. The choices made in the coming months will undoubtedly have profound and lasting consequences for the city and its residents, defining the future of criminal justice in San Francisco.

 

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Takes Bold Action as Mayor Breed’s Strategies Fall Short in Drug Crisis

In a stunning turn of events, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has emerged as the driving force in the fight against the escalating drug crisis, as Mayor London Breed’s strategies continue to fall short. With the city grappling with drug-related issues, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto has taken decisive action, unveiling a courageous plan to deploy 130 additional deputies to the troubled Tenderloin and South of Market (SoMa) neighborhoods.

SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative
SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative

While Mayor Breed’s approach has faced criticism for its ineffectiveness, Sheriff Miyamoto has stepped up to lead the charge in tackling the deep-rooted drug problem. With resolute determination, the Sheriff’s Office has presented a comprehensive strategy to address drug dealers and individuals openly using drugs in public. The deployment of additional deputies, starting this month, signifies a seismic shift in the battle against crime and substance abuse.

Sheriff Miyamoto, flanked by concerned citizens and law enforcement officials, announced this groundbreaking initiative outside City Hall. With unwavering resolve, he highlighted the urgent need for effective action in combating the city’s drug crisis. The Sheriff’s Office, guided by a steadfast commitment to public safety, is now taking the reins in the quest to find real solutions.

While the Sheriff’s Office courageously assumes a leading role, it is no secret that Mayor Breed’s strategies have fallen short of expectations. The current approach has been marred by limited success and persistent challenges. Public health experts have long decried the idea of relying on incarceration and criminalization as effective means to address substance abuse disorders.


However, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s proactive stance offers hope for a different path forward. By increasing law enforcement presence and targeting drug-related offenses, they aim to restore order and offer a helping hand to those struggling with addiction. The Sheriff’s Office’s unwavering dedication to the community’s well-being is a testament to their commitment to creating lasting change.

Nevertheless, significant hurdles remain in this uphill battle. Both the San Francisco Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office confront staffing shortages that hinder their ability to effectively address the city’s safety concerns. Police Chief Bill Scott emphasized the importance of receiving adequate funding and support from elected officials to overcome these challenges. The commitment of city leaders to address staffing issues will be crucial in achieving tangible progress.

As the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office takes bold strides in confronting the drug crisis, it is evident that their approach stands in stark contrast to Mayor Breed’s faltering strategies. With their specialized training and unwavering dedication, the Sheriff’s Office deputies will fearlessly patrol the streets, tackling criminal elements head-on and extending a lifeline to those lost in the grips of addiction.

While the Sheriff’s Office shoulders the burden of this monumental task, it is vital for the community to rally behind them. Together, we can bring about meaningful change, ensuring a safer and healthier future for San Francisco. Let us unite in support of the determined men and women of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office as they lead the charge to reshape our city’s destiny in the face of a daunting drug crisis.

Mayor London Breed’s Covert Defunding Tactics: Undermining the Sheriff’s Department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mayor London Breed’s strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco has ignited concerns among law enforcement officials and citizens alike. Operating under the radar, these silent defunding measures, such as the denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, and disproportionate budget cuts, are adversely impacting the department’s staffing levels and compromising public safety. Let’s examine these covert actions and their potential ramifications on the Sheriff’s Department.

Denial of Longevity Incentive Proposal

One glaring example of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding strategy is the denial of the longevity incentive proposal. On May 15th, 2023, Mayor Breed rejected this proposal aimed at retaining experienced deputies eligible for retirement, and she also failed to come to the table with a counter proposal or offer any alternative ideas to address the issue. This lack of engagement and proactive effort from the mayor demonstrates a concerning disregard for the retention of deputy sheriffs and exacerbates the ongoing staffing crisis within the Sheriff’s Department. The loss of 50 to 110 deputies due to early retirement further strains the department, leading to increased workloads, reduced efficiency, and compromised public safety.

Budget Cuts and Disproportionate Allocation

Mayor Breed’s budget decisions further illustrate her covert defunding tactics. While slashing the Sheriff’s Department budget by 3%, the mayor simultaneously increased the budgets of other public safety departments, such as the police by 9% and the fire department by 3%. This disproportionate allocation sends a troubling message about the mayor’s priorities and undermines the Sheriff’s Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties.

Unused Funds and Overtime Reduction

The mayor’s claim of utilizing unused funds from vacant positions and reducing overtime within the Sheriff’s Office raises questions about the allocation of resources. If these funds were available, they could have been redirected to support initiatives like the longevity incentive proposal, thereby mitigating staffing shortages and reducing the need for overtime. However, the failure to do so implies a disregard for the long-term sustainability of the department and places an unnecessary burden on the existing workforce.

Implications for Public Safety and Financial Efficiency

The consequences of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding tactics extend beyond understaffing. Insufficient staffing levels compromise response times, limit the department’s ability to proactively address emerging challenges, and hinder the delivery of essential services to the community. Moreover, the reliance on overtime to fill vacant positions not only strains the budget but also places an additional burden on the dedicated deputies who shoulder the increased workload.

A Call for Accountability and Transparency

In light of these concerning developments, it is crucial for concerned citizens, deputies, and community stakeholders to hold Mayor London Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies. The Sheriff’s Department plays a vital role in maintaining public safety, and it deserves the necessary resources and support to fulfill its duties effectively.

Additionally, transparency and open dialogue are imperative in addressing these budgetary concerns. Citizens must demand clear explanations and justifications for the disproportionate budget cuts and the denial of proposals aimed at retaining experienced deputies. By fostering transparency, the community can actively participate in shaping a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s covert defunding tactics targeting the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco have serious implications for public safety and the well-being of the community. The denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, without offering any alternative solutions, and the disproportionate budget cuts jeopardize the department’s staffing levels, hindering its ability to maintain law and order effectively. It is essential for citizens and stakeholders to voice their concerns, demand accountability, and advocate for the allocation of resources that align with the department’s needs. Only through open dialogue and collaborative efforts can we ensure a robust and secure future for the Sheriff’s Department and the community it serves. By holding Mayor Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies, we can work towards a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety and upholds the principles of justice and equality.

 

Media Contact:

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

The Impact of Operant Conditioning on Criminal Mindsets: San Francisco’s Lenient Approach under Scrutiny

open-air-drug-marketOperant conditioning, a psychological concept that examines how behavior is influenced by consequences, has far-reaching implications in various aspects of our lives. In the realm of criminal justice, the application of operant conditioning principles can have profound effects on the mindset of offenders. This article delves into the concerning issue of San Francisco’s lenient approach to offenders who violate the conditions of their electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. By exploring the inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through operant conditioning, we shed light on the significant impact this leniency has on the criminal mindset and its implications for public safety.

Operant Conditioning and Criminal Mindsets: Operant conditioning, as developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner, posits that behaviors are shaped and maintained by their consequences. In the context of criminal behavior, the principles of operant conditioning can play a pivotal role in reinforcing or discouraging criminal actions. When offenders consistently experience minimal consequences or repeated chances without facing severe repercussions, they inadvertently learn that their wrong behavior can go unpunished. This forms the foundation for the development of a criminal mindset, where individuals perceive that their actions have little accountability or deterrence.

Leniency in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: San Francisco’s lenient approach towards offenders who violate electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project is a cause for concern. Instead of imposing substantial consequences for violations, offenders are granted multiple chances and minimal penalties. This leniency inadvertently reinforces the wrong behavior, undermining the principles of accountability and deterrence. As a result, offenders develop a distorted perception that their actions carry no significant consequences, contributing to a culture of impunity.

The Reinforcement of Wrong Behavior: The lenient application of operant conditioning in San Francisco’s criminal justice system inadvertently reinforces wrong behavior among offenders. By repeatedly granting chances and minimal penalties, the system fails to establish a strong connection between criminal actions and negative outcomes. Offenders perceive that their actions have little impact on their freedom or future, further entrenching the belief that criminal behavior can go unpunished. This reinforcement of wrong behavior creates a vicious cycle, leading to an increase in criminal activity and posing a threat to public safety.

Implications for Public Safety: The lenient approach driven by operant conditioning principles in San Francisco has significant implications for public safety. When offenders perceive that their actions have minimal consequences, it erodes the deterrent effect that a robust criminal justice system should have. The lack of accountability not only emboldens offenders but also sends a detrimental message to the community, instilling a sense of insecurity and a loss of trust in the justice system. As a result, crime rates escalate, innocent lives are shattered, and neighborhoods suffer the consequences of a flawed approach to rehabilitation.

Moving Towards a Balanced Approach: Recognizing the detrimental impact of operant conditioning on criminal mindsets, it is essential to adopt a more balanced approach in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Striking a balance between rehabilitation and accountability is crucial. Implementing structured consequences that are proportionate to the severity of offenses can create a stronger deterrent effect. By ensuring that offenders face meaningful repercussions for their actions, we can break the cycle of wrong behavior and foster a greater sense of accountability and responsibility.

The inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through leniency in San Francisco’s criminal justice system, driven by operant conditioning principles, poses a significant challenge to public safety. The development of a criminal mindset, wherein offenders perceive little accountability or deterrence, perpetuates a cycle of wrongdoing. It is imperative for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and community stakeholders to address this issue. By adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates accountability, proportional consequences, and a commitment

Mayor Breed’s budget worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails

PRESS RELEASE

Mayor Breed’s budget – released yesterday –worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails at San Bruno and at 7th Street for inmates’; conditions which cause long term chronic illness, and increases the lack of safety for both inmates and deputies. The City is currently being sued for these unconstitutional conditions. Both the San Bruno Jail (County Jail 3) and the 7th Street Jail (County Jail 2) are in violation of Building Code, Title 24, and cannot meet California Regulations. Staffing is already woefully short, forcing the jail to regularly lockdown all prisoners, denying inmates out of cell time, and creating in essence solitary confinement. This is all unconstitutional. Recently the Mayor denied a longevity proposal that would retain needed deputies that are now going to retire but gave longevity incentives to Police and Fire. Yet, Mayor Breed’s budget cuts another 3% off the Sheriff’s budget, while increasing the police budget by 9%. The increase in police hiring is to encourage new arrests. New arrests will increase the inmate population and any increased inmate population will only make the unconstitutional conditions at County Jails worse.

Right now, we have inmates who have been incarcerated for years. At least 60 inmates have been incarcerated for over 4 years. These jails have no outdoor facilities, and so all inmates are housed 24/7 under fluorescent lights. With lockdowns, inmates are forced inside their cell without exercise, without showers, without meaningful human interaction and contact, at times for 24 hours or more. Studies show that forced isolation is one of the worst things that can happen to inmates. Stressed out and mentally ill inmates are a danger to themselves and to deputies.

The lawsuit, Norbert v. CCSF , 3:19-cv-02724 is set for trial on August 8, 2023. San Francisco has no defense for why our jails violate the building code. And the plaintiffs in Norbert claim that denying human beings – long term – outdoor sunlight causes chronic illness, including diabetes. One of the plaintiffs, M. Brackens has developed diabetes while incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association wants to do our job, and do it in a way that treats inmates humanely. The Sheriff’s Department Mission Statement says that the Sheriff is committed to the “constitutional detention” of inmates. The Mayor needs to allocate enough funding so that all inmates receive constitutional conditions of confinement.

We were forced to close 850 Bryant Street because it was so dilapidated that there were regular raw sewage spills in jail cells. That cost the City $2.1 million in a lawsuit.

San Francisco needs to provide jails that meet all building code and constitutional standards. And the Sheriff’s Department cannot do so, if the Mayor keeps cutting the Sheriff’s budget so there’s not enough staffing, and sufficient capital investment in the jails themselves so that the jails meet constitutional standards.

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

How to Start a Neighborhood Watch Group Using Nextdoor App

Safety and security are important concerns for any community, and starting a neighborhood watch group can be an effective way to foster a sense of community vigilance and keep your neighborhood safe. With the advancement of technology, there are now online tools that can facilitate the organization and communication of a neighborhood watch group, such as the Nextdoor app. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to start a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app.

Step 1: Create or Join a Nextdoor Account The first step in starting a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app is to create an account on the Nextdoor platform, if you don’t have one already. Nextdoor is a social networking app that connects neighbors and allows them to communicate about various topics, including community safety. You can sign up using your email address or by linking your account to your Facebook profile. Once your account is set up, you can verify your address to join your neighborhood’s Nextdoor community.

Step 2: Get to Know Your Neighbors Building a neighborhood watch group starts with getting to know your neighbors. Take the time to introduce yourself to your neighbors and build relationships with them. This can be done through the Nextdoor app by sending messages or posting introductions in the neighborhood feed. Building a sense of community and trust among your neighbors is crucial for the success of your neighborhood watch group.

Step 3: Create a Neighborhood Watch Group Once you have established a rapport with your neighbors, you can start creating a neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. You can create a group specifically for your neighborhood within the Nextdoor platform, and invite your neighbors to join. You can name your group something like “Neighborhood Watch” or “Safety Patrol,” and set the privacy settings to invite only or require approval to join for added security.

Step 4: Define the Purpose and Goals of Your Group Clearly define the purpose and goals of your neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. What are the main objectives of your group? Is it to report suspicious activities, share safety tips, or organize neighborhood watch patrols? Clearly outlining the purpose and goals of your group will help members understand its focus and expectations.

Step 5: Establish Communication Protocols Communication is key for the success of any neighborhood watch group, and the Nextdoor app provides various tools to facilitate communication within your group. You can use the group’s chat feature or create specific discussion threads for different topics. Establish communication protocols, such as how and when to report suspicious activities, what information to include in reports, and how to handle emergency situations. Encourage active participation and engagement from all group members.

Step 6: Educate and Empower Group Members Empower your group members with knowledge and resources to be proactive in keeping their neighborhood safe. Share safety tips, crime prevention strategies, and information about local law enforcement agencies. Invite local law enforcement representatives to provide training sessions or participate in discussions on the Nextdoor app. Educate your group members about emergency protocols, including what to do in case of a fire, natural disaster, or other emergencies.

Step 7: Organize Neighborhood Watch Patrols One of the main activities of a neighborhood watch group is organizing patrols to monitor the neighborhood for suspicious activities. With the Nextdoor app, you can easily coordinate neighborhood watch patrols by creating events or discussion threads for members to sign up for patrol shifts. Encourage members to report any suspicious activities they observe during patrols or in their day-to-day activities.

Step 8: Collaborate with Local Law Enforcement Collaboration with local law enforcement is crucial for the success of a neighborhood watch group. Establish a positive relationship with your local law enforcement agencies and keep them informed about your neighborhood watch group’s activities. Invite law enforcement representatives to attend group meetings or participate in discussions on the Nextdoor app. Seek their guidance and support in organizing your neighborhood watch group, and work together to address safety concerns in your community. Remember, neighborhood watch groups are not meant to replace law enforcement, but to work in partnership with them to enhance community safety.

Step 9: Promote Community Engagement In addition to patrolling and reporting suspicious activities, a neighborhood watch group should also focus on promoting community engagement. Encourage members to participate in neighborhood events, socialize with one another, and look out for each other. A strong sense of community can deter crime and create a supportive environment where neighbors watch out for one another’s safety.

Step 10: Regularly Evaluate and Adjust Regularly evaluate and adjust the activities of your neighborhood watch group on the Nextdoor app. Review the effectiveness of your patrols, communication protocols, and engagement strategies. Seek feedback from group members and law enforcement partners to identify areas for improvement. Adjust your group’s activities and strategies accordingly to ensure that you are addressing the changing safety needs of your community.

In conclusion, starting a neighborhood watch group using the Nextdoor app can be a powerful way to promote community safety and security. By creating a group, defining its purpose and goals, establishing communication protocols, organizing patrols, collaborating with law enforcement, and promoting community engagement, you can build a proactive and vigilant neighborhood watch group. Remember, safety is a shared responsibility, and by working together as a community, you can create a safer and more secure neighborhood for everyone. Stay connected, stay vigilant, and keep your neighborhood safe with Nextdoor!

Car break-ins are a major problem in San Francisco

Car break-ins are a major problem in San Francisco, with thousands of incidents reported every year. In fact, San Francisco has one of the highest rates of car break-ins in the country. This can be a frustrating and costly experience for car owners. However, there is a solution that can help reduce the risk of break-ins – security window tinting.  Make it difficult for the thieves.

car break ins

Security window tinting is a type of window film that is designed to make your car’s windows stronger and more difficult to break. It works by adding an extra layer of protection to your car’s windows that makes it much harder for a thief to break in. Here are some of the ways that security window tinting can help reduce break-ins in San Francisco:

  1. Deterrent Effect

Thieves are often looking for easy targets – cars that they can break into quickly and without being noticed. By adding security window tinting to your car, you are making it more difficult and time-consuming for a thief to break in. This can act as a deterrent, making your car less attractive to potential thieves.

  1. Reduced Visibility

Security window tinting also reduces the visibility into your car, making it harder for thieves to see what’s inside. This can help prevent smash-and-grab break-ins where a thief breaks a window and quickly grabs whatever they can see. With security window tinting, they are less likely to see anything valuable inside and may move on to an easier target.

  1. Increased Durability

Security window tinting is made of a strong, multi-layered film that is 4 mil. in thickness and designed to hold your car’s windows together even if they are shattered. This can help prevent a thief from gaining access to your car, and also reduces the risk of injury if the windows are broken during a break-in.

  1. Heat Reduction

In addition to its security benefits, window tinting can also help reduce the amount of heat that enters your car, making it more comfortable to drive and reducing the need for air conditioning. This can be particularly beneficial in San Francisco’s warm climate.

  1. UV Protection

Window tinting can also protect your car’s interior from the damaging effects of the sun’s UV rays, which can cause fading and cracking over time. This can help maintain the value of your car and keep it looking newer for longer.

Installing security window tinting on your car is a relatively quick and easy process that can be done by a professional. Once installed, the tinting requires little to no maintenance and can last for many years. It is also a cost-effective solution for reducing the risk of break-ins in San Francisco.  Here is an example of security window tint and some locations of installers https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00016706/

In conclusion, if you want to protect your car from break-ins in San Francisco, security window tinting is a smart investment. It can act as a deterrent, reduce visibility, increase durability, and provide additional benefits such as heat reduction and UV protection. By adding this extra layer of protection to your car’s windows, you can enjoy greater peace of mind and reduce the risk of becoming a victim of car break-ins.