Tag: San Francisco Police

ZSFGH Is Not Safe for Vulnerable Patients: Documented Safety Failures Affect Staff, Patients, and Visitors — and DPH’s Security Model Is Failing

Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFGH) is a city within a city—a dense, vertical campus with constant foot traffic, high-acuity medicine, psychiatric emergencies, and complex social-service needs moving through the same corridors. Vulnerable inpatients can’t “opt out” of that environment. They can’t leave when violence erupts. They depend on the hospital’s security posture to be strong, visible, and fast.

ZSFGH has documented safety failures affecting staff, patients, and visitors—and the public record shows those failures are not hypothetical.

ZSFGH is a high-risk campus, not an outpatient clinic

ZSFGH is San Francisco’s only Level-1 Trauma Center and a major hub for psychiatric emergency care and high-risk patient volume. That reality alone demands a district-style security posture—the kind you would expect for a downtown transit node, a courthouse complex, or a busy police district footprint.

DPH’s own planning direction: reduce sworn presence, measure “success” by avoiding law enforcement

DPH’s security planning materials have repeatedly centered a policy goal of reducing the presence of law enforcement, and DPH has emphasized metrics framed around completing Behavioral Emergency Response Team (BERT) interventions without law enforcement present. SF Media

DPH’s own Environment of Care reporting also describes BERT as part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on law enforcement—explicitly listing measures of “success” such as reducing law-enforcement interventions and “replacing” deputy positions with DPH security roles.

BERT may help in some situations. But a hospital campus does not become “safe” because sworn staff were avoided. It becomes safe when violence is prevented, contained quickly, deterred, and when vulnerable people are protected in real time.

The December 2025 Ward 86 killing: the public timeline shows warning signs — and the system still failed

In December 2025, a social worker at Ward 86 was fatally stabbed inside ZSFGH. Reporting after the killing describes long-standing safety concerns, prior warnings, and a security posture that did not stop a determined attacker. San Francisco Chronicle

Mission Local’s reported timeline (source: Mission Local)

Mission Local reported that the alleged attacker had been reported to security for abusive behavior and threats toward a doctor about two weeks before the attack, that there were plans to ban him, and that staff had tried to contact him leading up to the incident. (Mission Local also reports eyewitness accounts disputing the “within seconds” narrative and describes delays and gaps in control of access and response.)

That matters because it goes directly to a second issue:

DPH’s own Violence Risk Notification Policy: if a high-risk threat is identified, law enforcement notification is required

DPH’s Violence Risk Notification Policy contemplates situations where a threat is assessed and escalated, and it includes explicit notification requirements that involve law enforcement. The policy’s notification flow requires SFSO notification and indicates SFPD notification as part of the process when certain thresholds are met. 

If DPH leadership had credible notice of a specific, escalating, high-risk threat (as Mission Local reports), then the core question becomes unavoidable:

Did DPH follow its own violence-risk notification policy—early, formally, and fully—so that sworn resources could be deployed in a preventive posture (not merely reactionary)?

When a system trains itself—by policy design, incentives, and staffing—to treat sworn presence as something to be minimized, deputies risk being pushed into a reactionary role, and then blamed when the underlying security posture fails.

ZSFGH’s own security reporting shows serious crime and safety volume

DPH/SFHN security reporting for ZSFGH documents significant incident volume across categories that directly affect staff, patients, and visitors. In the FY 2023–2024 security annual report, ZSFGH reported hundreds of “crimes against persons,” along with property crimes and other categories (including increases compared to prior years in multiple areas).

This is not an abstract debate about ideology. It’s measurable security workload on a high-risk campus.

Documented theft, privacy loss, and property vulnerability — not just violence

Safety is not only stabbings. It’s also the predictable results of weak deterrence and insufficient patrol coverage in a “city-within-a-city” environment:

  • Attempted theft of emergency equipment from an ambulance at ZSFGH in September 2024 resulted in a paramedic injury during the incident. San Francisco Chronicle+1

  • A missing patient logbook containing sensitive information triggered security and policy review reporting in April 2024. SFist

And as our current article correctly emphasizes: we haven’t even fully touched the broader theft exposure—including the vulnerability of hospital-owned property, supplies, and equipment, and the diversion risk that grows when visible deterrence and real patrol saturation are reduced.

What a working, realistic fix looks like (short and operational — not a “theory document”)

ZSFGH needs district-style coverage that matches the threat environment, not a model optimized around avoiding sworn presence:

  1. Uniformed deputy foot patrols across corridors, stairwells, entrances, elevators, and transition points (deterrence + rapid response).

  2. Plainclothes deputies on campus in addition to assigned posts, focused on:

    1. catching theft and criminal activity without telegraphing presence, and

    2. co-responding with BERT when appropriate—while preserving immediate peace-officer capability when violence erupts.

  3. A posture that treats sworn staffing as preventive protection for staff, patients, and visitors—not a last-second backstop.

Bottom line

The public record now includes a fatal stabbing inside ZSFGH, documented concerns about long-running safety failures, and ongoing theft/property vulnerabilities. San Francisco Chronicle+2San Francisco Chronicle+2 Meanwhile, DPH’s own planning materials and internal reporting show a model and culture shift aimed at reducing law-enforcement presence and measuring “success” by minimizing law-enforcement involvement. SF Media

ZSFGH is not safe for vulnerable patients under the current posture—nor is it reliably safe for staff and visitors. The standard must be real protection and real outcomes—not metrics that celebrate how often deputies were avoided.

Internal DPH Memos Show ZSFGH Security Plan Was Built to Keep Deputies Out

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Internal DPH Memos Show ZSFGH Security Plan Was Built to Keep Deputies Out

Deputy Sheriffs’ Association says DPH cut sworn staffing, misused equity data, and spent more on an unproven BERT / private-security model before fatal stabbing of UCSF social worker

San Francisco, CA — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) is releasing internal Department of Public Health (DPH) documents showing that security changes at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSF GH) were deliberately structured to keep law enforcement out of most patient crises — even as weapons seizures, assaults, and workplace-violence incidents remained high.

On December 4, 2025, a UCSF social worker was fatally stabbed multiple times in Ward 86 at ZSF GH. A nearby deputy intervened, disarmed the attacker, and allowed staff to begin life-saving measures, but the victim later died. SFDSA President Ken Lomba says this tragedy is the predictable outcome of a policy that treated deputies as a problem to be reduced, not a safety partner to be strengthened.

“DPH used the language of ‘equity’ and ‘best practices’ to justify a security experiment that removed deputies from high-risk units and posts and replaced them with BERT clinicians, cadets, and unarmed guards,” said Lomba. “Their own memos brag that almost nine out of ten behavioral emergencies now happen with no law enforcement present. On Ward 86, we saw the real-world result of that decision.”

DPH’s own memos: cut deputies, keep them out of the room

In a June 14, 2021 Safety Services Staffing Plan Proposal, DPH proposed to:

  • Reduce Sheriff’s deputies at ZSF GH by 11.4 positions (about 14.5 FTE including backfill), and
  • Add 31.9 FTE of Psychiatry Nurses and Licensed Psychiatric Technicians, plus 2.5 FTE Care Experience Health Workers, to form a Behavioral Emergency Response Team (BERT).

The same plan specifies that non-uniformed cadets would provide clinical support in patient intervention, function as “healthcare ambassadors,” and conduct campus patrols.

A later August 28, 2023 Security Staffing Plan Update to the Health Commission reports that:

  • The plan would reduce deputies by 11.4 FTE and add 29.4 FTE of BERT staff to create a 24-hour BERT program in the Emergency Department.
  • DPH proposed supporting BERT with non-uniformed cadets trained as “healthcare ambassadors,” not with additional deputies.
  • By early 2023, BERT was fully implemented and, instead of calling law enforcement, staff were calling BERT to thousands more “risk behavior” events than the Sheriff’s Office, with over 80% of BERT activations — and nearly 90% of Emergency Department BERT activations — occurring without any law enforcement present.
  • In July 2023, the 11.4 FTE of deputies was officially removed from the ZSFGH work order, reducing deputies from 30 FTE to 21 FTE.

At the same time, the update memo notes that 46.5 FTE of “healthcare trained private security officers” were installed as hospital ambassadors at ZSFGH campus entry points.

“At the one campus that handles most of San Francisco’s stabbings, shootings, and psychiatric emergencies, DPH chose to send BERT and cadets into the room and push sworn deputies farther away,” Lomba said. “That is not a co-responder model — that’s a model designed to keep law enforcement out of the picture until after violence has already occurred.”

An expensive experiment, not a safety upgrade

DPH has sometimes framed these changes as modernization or rationalization of security. Their own FTE and cost figures tell a different story.

According to DPH’s Safety Services plan and subsequent updates:

  • At ZSFGH, DPH proposed to reduce the Sheriff work order by 11.4 deputy positions (about 14.5 FTE), while adding 31.9 FTE of BERT psych nurses/techs and 2.5 FTE care workers.
  • By August 2023, 29.4 FTE of BERT positions were funded, and 46.5 FTE of contracted “healthcare trained private security officers” were in place at ZSFGH campus entry points.
  • In their own cost comparisons, DPH shows that a small number of deputies and cadets account for several million dollars in annual cost, while dozens of private security officers are added on separate contracts, illustrating that DPH shifted money away from sworn and cadet roles toward a much larger private-security footprint.

At Laguna Honda Hospital, DPH’s example of “efficiency” makes the trade-off clear:

  • 8.4 FTE of deputies cost significantly more than 34.6 FTE of private security officers, who were then used to provide 24-hour monitoring in multiple locations.

Taken together, these documents show that DPH did not simply “save money by replacing deputies.” The department reduced sworn coverage and then layered on:

  • Dozens of BERT clinical positions,
  • Dozens of contracted private security officers, and
  • Cadets or other non-sworn “ambassador”-type roles.

From SFDSA’s perspective, this amounts to an expensive and unproven security experiment: one that trades sworn patrol and rapid response for a more complicated mix of clinical teams and unarmed guards, while leaving fewer deputies immediately available when violence erupts.

The Association is calling on the City to disclose the full annual cost of the BERT-plus-private-security model at ZSFGH and explain why that funding was not instead used to fully staff a sworn patrol division and fixed-post deputies in the highest-risk units and posts at the hospital.

Misusing equity data to justify cutting deputies

DPH also relied on a single statistic to justify reducing deputies: that about 46% of use-of-force incidents against patients in one reporting period involved Black/African American patients.

SFDSA does not dispute that racial disparities are real and serious. However, the way the data are presented raises concerns:

  • The figures in DPH’s materials do not provide the racial breakdown of patients in the specific high-risk areas (ED, PES, inpatient psych) where most force is recorded.
  • The same Safety Services plan acknowledges that deputies assisting with patient restraints and defending staff against attacks drive a large share of force incidents, yet this context is not clearly presented when the “46% Black” figure is cited.

Despite these limitations, DPH used this disparity as one of the key reasons to reduce the Sheriff’s work order and expand BERT and non-sworn roles.

“If DPH truly wants equity, the answer is not to quietly pull deputies out of high-risk units and hope the numbers look better,” Lomba said. “The answer is to be honest about what is driving these incidents and to fix it in partnership with staff, patients, and the communities we serve.”

ZSFGH is not comparable to LA or Alameda

In its own Security Model responses, DPH repeatedly cites Alameda Health System and Los Angeles County hospitals as “comparable” to ZSF GH and as justification for its hybrid BERT / non-sworn model.

SFDSA believes this comparison is misleading:

  1. One overloaded campus vs. multi-hospital systems
    • Alameda and LA counties distribute trauma and psychiatric emergencies across multiple hospitals and trauma centers, with sheriff’s deputies and city police departments available to surge to calls.
    • San Francisco relies on one safety-net campus — ZSFGH — as the City’s only Level-1 trauma center and only 24/7 psychiatric emergency department for roughly 1.5 million people in San Francisco and northern San Mateo County.
  2. Co-responder vs. “keep deputies away”
    • DPH’s own descriptions of Alameda and LA highlight hybrid security models that include healthcare security officers and county sheriff’s deputies as partners.
    • At ZSF GH, by contrast, DPH cut deputies by roughly one-third and used BERT plus cadets and unarmed private security to handle most risk-behavior incidents, with success measured partly by how often law enforcement is not present.
  3. Existing record of violence at ZSF GH
    • ZSFGH’s own annual reports emphasize that healthcare workers are almost four times more likely than workers in most other industries to experience workplace violence and that the hospital has had to invest in BERT and security upgrades to address persistent safety issues.

Not just one building — a vertical city of high-risk patients

Not just one building — a vertical city of high-risk patients
When DPH reduced deputy positions at ZSFGH, they did not simply pull deputies off “one hospital building.” They thinned coverage across what is effectively a vertical city of high-risk patients.

ZSFGH is a dense hilltop campus made up of multiple multi-story towers and specialty buildings — trauma, medical-surgical units, HIV and infectious-disease clinics, psychiatric emergency, acute psych, and high-risk outpatient programs — all stacked on top of each other and connected by elevators, stairwells, skyways, and long interior corridors. Nearly all of San Francisco’s Level-1 trauma care, 24/7 psychiatric emergency, and safety-net inpatient care is concentrated on this single site.

When a call comes in from an upper floor or a remote ward, deputies have to navigate multiple floors, secured access points, and crowded hallways before ever reaching the scene. On a campus like that, “response-only” policing is not a theory problem, it is a time-and-distance problem: every minute of delay is more time for a stabbing, a strangulation, or an assault on staff to continue.

Cutting deputies in that environment does not just mean fewer uniforms in one lobby. It means fewer sworn officers available to cover an entire vertical grid of vulnerable units — from the Emergency Department to Ward 86 to psych and ICU floors — at the same time. That is the reality DPH chose to ignore when it redesigned security around BERT, cadets, and unarmed guards.

“You cannot treat a single, overloaded trauma and psych emergency hospital in San Francisco like just another line on a spreadsheet next to Alameda and LA,” Lomba said. “Those systems built co-responder models with deputies and clinicians together. DPH’s implementation at ZSFGH went in a different direction: fewer deputies, more complexity, and more distance between sworn officers and the highest-risk units.”

What SFDSA is demanding now

In light of the internal memos, equity data, cost figures, and the fatal Ward 86 stabbing, SFDSA is calling for:

  1. Immediate restoration and expansion of assigned deputy-sheriff posts on high-risk units and posts at ZSFGH, including Ward 86, ED, PES, and critical inpatient floors, with a fully staffed sworn patrol presence on campus.
  2. An independent safety and equity audit of ZSFGH’s security model — including BERT, cadets, private security, and deputy staffing — with full participation from frontline unions representing deputies, nurses, physicians, social workers, and other hospital staff.
  3. Transparent incident reporting, including detailed breakdowns of workplace-violence events and use-of-force by unit, incident type (crime-related, psychiatric, medical), clinical factors, and who requested the response, so that decisions are based on full context rather than partial statistics.
  4. A true co-responder model, where BERT clinicians work with trained, equipped deputies on the most dangerous calls, rather than being sent in instead of law enforcement.

“These memos show that the stakes at ZSFGH were always high: concentrated trauma, psychiatric emergencies, and a vulnerable patient population,” Lomba said. “What changed was DPH’s decision to move deputies out of the way and measure success by keeping law enforcement out of the room. After this tragedy, the City cannot pretend that model is working.”

Media Contact
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Phone: (415) 696-2428

Media Package Link

Why We’re Going Public: The Fight to Define the Sheriff’s Role in San Francisco Law

After over a year of stalled progress and unanswered letters, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is officially going public with monthly reports on our efforts to correct a long-standing legal omission in San Francisco’s Administrative Code — an omission that affects every resident’s public safety and the future of the Sheriff’s Office.

Admin Code Missing SFSOThe Problem: A Department with No Definition

While the San Francisco Police and Fire Departments are fully defined in both the City Charter and the Administrative Code — with operational duties, funding mechanisms, and emergency roles clearly outlined — the Sheriff’s Office is not. This omission is not only outdated, it’s dangerous. It leaves our city’s elected law enforcement agency out of the very legal framework that governs how city departments operate and cooperate.

This is not about politics or power grabs. It’s about codifying what the Sheriff’s Office already does, aligning it with Penal Code § 830.1(a), the San Francisco Charter, and state law.

What We Did

In collaboration with legal experts and legislative advisors, we proposed new Administrative Code language that would establish a simple section titled:

SEC. 2A.26 – Office of the Sheriff

This section mirrors the structure used for other public safety departments and affirms what the Sheriff’s Office already does every day — operate jails, conduct law enforcement duties, transport prisoners, serve court orders, and respond to emergencies. It brings transparency, consistency, and legal protection to a department that is vital to San Francisco’s safety.

We presented this language to both the Sheriff’s Office and Supervisor Matt Dorsey’s office earlier this summer. Supervisor Dorsey and his staff received it constructively and expressed openness to the effort.

The Silence — and the Delay

Despite our outreach and clear language confirming that the proposal does not restrict or redefine the Sheriff’s constitutional authority, we have received no written response from the Sheriff’s Office since July 7. Verbal confirmation was given that their attorneys are still reviewing it — but no timeline, no counter-proposal, and no forward movement has followed.

That silence is why we’re taking this to the public.

August 15: Public Reporting Begins

As of August 15, 2025, the SFDSA will release monthly public updates on the progress — or lack thereof — regarding this Administrative Code amendment. These updates will document all outreach, responses, delays, and resistance. The public has a right to know why San Francisco’s elected Sheriff remains undefined in city law while other departments are explicitly protected and empowered.

We hope these reports will spur action, not division. We remain fully willing to collaborate with the Sheriff and any City Supervisor ready to help fix this foundational oversight.

Why It Matters

This is about more than legal language. It’s about fairness. It’s about ensuring San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office — a department that touches thousands of lives daily — is no longer left out of the city’s own governing code.

The status quo leaves room for confusion, manipulation, and political interference. Defining the Sheriff’s Office in the Administrative Code brings clarity, stability, and accountability — not just for the department, but for the residents we serve.

🔔 Next Public Report: September 15, 2025

We encourage all community members, policymakers, and media to follow this process closely. Transparency starts here.

If you’d like to support this effort or have questions, please contact us at 415-696-2428.

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Launches First-of-Its-Kind AI Recruitment Agent on X

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

@AskSgtKen

San Francisco, CA — July 22, 2025 — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) has officially launched its groundbreaking AI-powered assistant, @AskSgtKen, on the social platform X (formerly Twitter) — making it one of the first publicly known real-time AI recruitment agents operated by a U.S. law enforcement labor association.

Built by SFDSA President Ken Lomba, AskSgtKen is not a scripted chatbot. It is a fully autonomous AI agent powered by natural language processing, capable of answering public questions, sharing safety briefings, and guiding interested candidates through the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office hiring process — all in real time and with human-like conversation.

“This isn’t a menu-based chatbot. AskSgtKen is an intelligent, adaptive AI that interacts directly with the public 24/7,” said Lomba. “It’s a tool designed to build transparency, drive recruitment, and bring modern innovation to public safety outreach.”

AskSgtKen is unique among law enforcement tools in three critical ways:

  • It runs on a public-facing social media platform (X) — not hidden behind a website.

  • It uses real artificial intelligence to understand and generate unscripted responses, not pre-written menus.

  • It was launched by a labor association — a rarity in public safety and union organizing.

From daily safety briefings to community trivia and detailed recruiting guidance, AskSgtKen brings a new model of digital engagement to the public safety space. It represents the SFDSA’s forward-thinking approach to connecting with San Francisco’s diverse communities and helping guide qualified individuals into meaningful careers as deputy sheriffs.

This launch follows SFDSA’s broader strategy of modernizing communication, enhancing transparency, and recruiting the next generation of law enforcement professionals through ethical and innovative tools.

Follow and engage with @AskSgtKen on X here: https://x.com/AskSgtKen

About the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA)

The SFDSA represents the sworn deputy sheriffs of San Francisco. Dedicated to protecting the city and supporting its members, the Association advocates for fair working conditions, community engagement, and forward-thinking public safety solutions.

Press Contact:

Ken Lomba

SFDSA President

415-696-242

SFDSA’s Relentless Campaign Amplified London Breed’s Failures Like No One Else

The SFDSA ran the most aggressive and far-reaching campaign against London Breed, ensuring her failures dominated the public narrative. While other groups hesitated to directly confront Breed’s record, the SFDSA fearlessly led the charge, making her leadership synonymous with the city’s most pressing crises. With precision, strategy, and bold execution, the SFDSA amplified Breed’s shortcomings to a larger audience than any other organization in the race, setting the tone for the entire mayoral election.

What makes this victory even more significant is that the SFDSA was the only public safety union to endorse Daniel Lurie as a candidate for mayor. This bold and independent move proved pivotal in securing his victory, positioning the SFDSA as a leader in shaping the future of San Francisco.

London Breed's Destruction of San Francisco

Exposing Breed’s Failures and Championing Change

The SFDSA’s campaign focused on holding Breed accountable for six years of ineffectiveness. By emphasizing her mismanagement of critical issues—like the fentanyl crisis, homelessness, and the defunding of law enforcement—the SFDSA became the loudest and most impactful voice in the election.

  • Unmatched Endorsement Strategy: While other public safety unions avoided directly challenging Breed, the SFDSA endorsed Daniel Lurie, a candidate whose platform aligned with our mission to restore public safety and accountability in San Francisco.
  • Dominating the Narrative: Viral nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed,” “Defunder Breed,” and “Homeless Czar Breed” became shorthand for her administration’s incompetence, shaping how San Franciscans viewed her leadership.

This bold decision to endorse Lurie and attack Breed set the SFDSA apart as a driving force for change, influencing public opinion and the course of the election.

Daniel Lurie: The SFDSA’s Vision for Leadership

The SFDSA’s endorsement of Daniel Lurie wasn’t just a political move—it was a commitment to addressing San Francisco’s most pressing challenges. Lurie’s platform focused on:

  • Restoring Public Safety: Increasing staffing for law enforcement and addressing the city’s spiraling crime rates.
  • Fighting the Fentanyl Crisis: Implementing meaningful reforms to curb overdoses and hold drug dealers accountable.
  • Solving Homelessness: Pursuing innovative and effective solutions to get individuals off the streets and into supportive housing.

By endorsing Lurie, the SFDSA sent a clear message: public safety and accountability must be at the heart of San Francisco’s future.

SFDSA’s Multi-Pronged Campaign Strategy

The SFDSA executed a highly focused campaign that leveraged both modern and traditional outreach tools to ensure its message reached San Francisco voters.

Social Media Campaigns with Over 2 Million Views

The SFDSA’s social media campaigns were a game-changer. With over 2 million views, our posts and videos ensured that San Francisco voters repeatedly encountered our messaging in various forms.

  • Targeted Messaging: Ads and videos zeroed in on Breed’s most glaring failures, linking her directly to rising crime, the fentanyl epidemic, and homelessness.
  • Viral Impact: The SFDSA’s online content didn’t just inform—it sparked outrage. Nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed” trended locally, driving conversations across social platforms and further embedding her failures in the public’s mind.

Mailers That Left No Room for Doubt

We sent out approximately 300,000 mailers citywide, detailing Breed’s disastrous record.

  • Farrell-Focused Mailers: Two versions promoted Mark Farrell, emphasizing his strong stance on public safety and fiscal responsibility as a direct contrast to Breed’s weak leadership.
  • Anti-Breed Messaging: The remaining mailers honed in on her failures, ensuring that voters were armed with the facts about her inability to govern effectively.

Online Videos and TV Commercials

The SFDSA didn’t stop at social media. Professionally produced online videos and TV commercials reached voters on multiple platforms.

  • Unflinching Criticism: Videos showcased Breed’s failures in stark detail, leaving no ambiguity about the consequences of her policies.
  • Expanding the Conversation: By reinforcing these messages on television and online, we ensured Breed’s shortcomings were part of every voter’s conversation leading up to Election Day.

Partnering with Breexit.org

Recognizing the need to expand our reach even further, the SFDSA became the largest donor to Richie Greenberg’s Breexit.org, an anti-Breed PAC dedicated to exposing her failures and unseating her.

  • Collaboration for Maximum Impact: While Breexit.org provided an additional platform for anti-Breed messaging, our significant contributions helped amplify their efforts, ensuring the message spread widely.

No other organization matched the SFDSA’s commitment to exposing Breed. Our partnership with Breexit.org further underscored our leadership in the fight to unseat her.

The SFDSA: A Bold Voice for Change

What sets the SFDSA apart is that we stood alone in holding Breed accountable while supporting Daniel Lurie as the candidate to lead San Francisco into a new era.

  • Unique Endorsement: As the only public safety union to endorse Lurie, the SFDSA demonstrated both foresight and commitment to bold, necessary change.
  • Relentless Advocacy: The SFDSA’s campaign was uncompromising in exposing Breed’s failures and elevating Lurie’s vision, providing voters with the truth that no one else was willing to share.

The Result: A New Era for San Francisco

Daniel Lurie’s victory marks a turning point for San Francisco. With Lurie as mayor-elect, the city now has a leader ready to prioritize public safety, tackle the fentanyl epidemic, and implement meaningful solutions to homelessness.

The SFDSA’s campaign was instrumental in this outcome. By exposing Breed’s failures and promoting Daniel Lurie as the city’s best hope, the association not only influenced the election but also demonstrated the power of strategic advocacy in shaping the city’s future.

As San Francisco moves forward, the SFDSA remains committed to working with Lurie to ensure that public safety, accountability, and reform remain top priorities. This campaign wasn’t just about defeating London Breed—it was about setting a new standard for leadership that truly serves the people. And we delivered.

Fentanyl Breed: 3,000+ Deaths, Empty Promises, and a City Abandoned

San Francisco is a city in crisis, and every year, the toll of the fentanyl epidemic grows more devastating. Despite public statements on enforcement and treatment, the reality in San Francisco tells a very different story. The alarming spread of open-air drug use from downtown into neighborhoods like the Mission District reflects a policy approach that isn’t working, leaving our communities, businesses, and city economy to suffer. For three years, the people of San Francisco have watched Mayor London Breed promise change while drug overdoses skyrocket, crime rises, and businesses close their doors.

Fentanyl-Breed

In August 2021, SFDSA President Ken Lomba took this crisis to a national stage during an interview on CNN with Erin Burnett. In a profound statement, Lomba pointed out that while COVID-19 had tragically taken around 130 lives in the city that year, overdose deaths were approaching 700. He questioned why overdose deaths weren’t being treated with the same urgency and called for the city to recognize the fentanyl crisis as an emergency. Lomba’s statement resonated worldwide, drawing praise from leaders across city departments who thanked him for raising the issue. Yet despite this urgent call to action, Mayor Breed has consistently failed to act meaningfully, leaving lives, livelihoods, and the city’s future at risk.

 

 

A Crisis Ignored: The Spread of Open-Air Drug Use Across San Francisco

Mayor Breed’s re-election platform claims a firm stance on ending open-air drug dealing, stating, “Open-air drug dealing and use are not acceptable in this city. Not in the Tenderloin or SoMa. Not anywhere.” Yet the reality is that drug activity, once concentrated in these neighborhoods, has spread to other areas like the Mission District, which has become an increasingly unsafe environment for residents and businesses alike. The city’s inaction has made San Francisco a known destination for drug users and dealers, and the continued spread shows that her administration’s policies are ineffective.

Breed’s platform highlights increased arrests and partnerships with agencies like the SFPD, SF Sheriff’s Office, and even the National Guard, claiming these steps doubled drug arrests in 2023. But arrest numbers alone don’t capture the reality in our streets. Simply pushing drug activity from one neighborhood to another doesn’t solve the problem—it merely shifts it, leaving the underlying crisis unaddressed.

A Hollow Approach to Treatment and Prevention

Breed’s platform points to expanding treatment options, including an additional 400 treatment beds and initiatives like Prop F, which requires treatment for adults receiving city assistance. However, the absence of a dedicated, abstinence-based rehabilitation center shows a critical gap in her approach. Treatment programs are vital, but without a facility providing structured, supportive, abstinence-focused recovery, the city lacks the resources to make a real difference. For those struggling with addiction, these facilities offer a chance for long-term recovery in a controlled environment, addressing the underlying issues that lead to drug dependency.

By failing to implement a comprehensive rehabilitation center, Breed’s administration has left residents without the options they need to overcome addiction and rebuild their lives. The city’s continued reliance on harm reduction alone, without a balance of recovery-focused initiatives, has kept overdose numbers high while ignoring the broader needs of those affected by addiction.

Prioritizing Policies that Undermine Public Safety

Instead of focusing on addiction treatment and community safety, Mayor Breed has chosen to direct resources toward policies that allow repeat offenders back onto the streets under ankle monitoring. This “reform” approach has not only failed to deter crime but has put communities at risk. When violent felons and drug offenders are repeatedly released, they not only continue to engage in drug activity but also contribute to rising crime rates. This trend has driven small businesses out of neighborhoods, frightened away tourists, and left families and residents feeling unsafe in their own city.

 

 

A Disregard for Human Life and the City’s Economic Health

Each overdose death represents not just a statistic but a lost life—a person with friends, family, and a future cut short. Mayor Breed’s lack of a proactive, life-centered plan demonstrates a disregard for the value of human life. For three years, the city has seen overdose deaths rise with no effective intervention. President Lomba’s statement on CNN highlighted this urgency, yet Breed’s administration has failed to respond with the necessary focus and resources to address the crisis.

The impact extends beyond personal tragedy; it has crippled San Francisco’s economy. Drug use and the associated crime have emptied once-thriving business districts, as shoppers and tourists avoid areas plagued by open drug markets and theft. The economic repercussions are far-reaching—small businesses that have served communities for years are closing, and prospective businesses are wary of setting up shop in a city unable to maintain safe public spaces.

 

 

 

The Need for Real Leadership and a Unified, Effective Response

Mayor Breed’s approach has failed San Franciscans. To truly address this crisis, the city needs a leader who values human life, supports recovery and rehabilitation, and will take decisive action to save lives, restore public safety, and rebuild the city’s economy. Effective change demands:

  1. A Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Center: Establishing a dedicated, abstinence-based rehabilitation center that provides a structured environment for recovery. This is not only a public health measure but a crucial step toward helping individuals reclaim their lives.
  2. Public Safety Measures Focused on Accountability: Ending the cycle of releasing violent offenders and repeat drug users onto the streets, instead pursuing policies that balance compassion with accountability to ensure public safety.
  3. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Recovery: Addressing the public safety crisis and the overdose epidemic is essential to reviving San Francisco’s economy. By focusing on safe streets, San Francisco can once again become a welcoming environment for shoppers, tourists, and new businesses.

San Francisco deserves leadership that puts people before politics, that values every life lost, and that is committed to the safety and prosperity of the entire community. Mayor Breed’s record shows a troubling lack of regard for these principles. San Franciscans need a leader who will take action to end the cycle of addiction and crime, protect lives, and revitalize the city. After three years of broken promises, the time for change is now.

The people of San Francisco deserve a city where lives are valued, where communities are safe, and where businesses can thrive. It’s time for real leadership to make that vision a reality.

 

“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.”

London Breed’s Leadership: Enabling Chaos, Facilitating Addiction, and Failing San Francisco

San Francisco is in crisis. The city that was once the pride of the West Coast has become a symbol of lawlessness, addiction, and failed leadership. London Breed’s policies, flip-flopping on key issues, have taken us to this point. Under her watch, San Francisco has experienced record-high overdose deaths, rampant open-air drug use, and an escalation of public disorder.

In 2023, San Francisco witnessed the deadliest year on record for overdose deaths. More than 3,000 lives have been lost to fentanyl during Breed’s tenure, and the city has spiraled into chaos. Yet, despite these catastrophic numbers, Mayor Breed continues to mislead San Franciscans with failed policies, political opportunism, and inconsistency.

As the 2024 mayoral election approaches, San Franciscans must ask themselves: Is this the future we want for our city?

Mark Farrell

Breed’s Flip-Flopping on Safe Consumption Sites: A Failed Experiment

In 2020, Mayor Breed announced her plan to create safe consumption sites, where individuals could use drugs under supervision. Breed championed these sites as part of a broader “harm reduction” strategy to address the opioid crisis. But as overdose deaths skyrocketed, it became clear that these policies were not solving the problem. Instead, they were enabling it.

Breed’s support for the Tenderloin Linkage Center, a “state of emergency” experiment in the heart of San Francisco’s Tenderloin District, allowed drug users to openly consume narcotics under the guise of harm reduction. In just 11 months, the center reversed 333 overdoses, but rather than addressing the root cause of addiction or cleaning up the streets, the site became a symbol of Breed’s failure to get control of the crisis.

Breed’s response? Close the center without explanation in December 2022. Her experiment ended, leaving the city with nothing but higher death tolls and continued disorder. Instead of delivering solutions, Breed’s leadership amounted to little more than an expensive failed experiment.

Inconsistency at the Helm: Political Survival Over San Francisco’s Well-Being

Breed’s recent pivot to law-and-order rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to salvage her political career as the 2024 mayoral election approaches. After years of enabling open-air drug use through her harm reduction policies, she has now begun increasing police patrols and arrests in a transparent effort to convince voters she’s serious about public safety.

This shift isn’t based on conviction or a real plan—it’s pure political calculation. Mayor Breed has seen the writing on the wall. She knows San Franciscans are fed up with the lawlessness, the crime, the rampant drug use, and the neglect of public safety. But after years of facilitating and perpetuating addiction, her sudden crackdown rings hollow.

Where was this concern for public safety when she allowed open drug use in the Tenderloin? Where was the law-and-order approach when she pushed for safe consumption sites while overdose deaths surged to record highs?

Breed’s actions show a clear pattern: she panders to public opinion only when it benefits her politically. In 2020 and 2021, it was politically expedient to push for harm reduction. Now, with an election looming, she’s flipped to a tougher stance on crime. But after years of enabling the very disorder she now claims to be addressing, can San Franciscans trust her sudden shift?

Safe Consumption Sites: Enabling Lawlessness, Perpetuating Addiction

Breed’s support for safe consumption sites has had devastating consequences. While these sites were supposed to reduce harm, they normalized drug use and contributed to the public disorder that now defines San Francisco’s streets. And the evidence is clear: under Breed’s leadership, overdose deaths soared.

Governor Gavin Newsom, recognizing the dangers posed by these sites, vetoed a state bill that would have allowed them to operate legally. Yet, even after this veto, Breed continued to push for local sites, defying state law and ignoring the public’s safety.

Her insistence on opening safe consumption sites, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they were failing, shows a clear disregard for the well-being of San Francisco’s residents. Instead of providing treatment and recovery options, these sites acted as enablers of addiction, keeping people trapped in a cycle of drug use and dependence.

San Francisco needs leadership that prioritizes recovery, safety, and accountability. Mayor Breed’s harm reduction strategy has failed. Her inconsistency and opportunism have created an environment where addiction flourishes, crime rises, and families feel unsafe.

Mark Farrell: The Leader San Francisco Needs

In contrast to Breed’s failed leadership, Mark Farrell has a clear, consistent, and actionable plan to fix San Francisco. He understands that law and order are essential to rebuilding the city, but he also knows that addiction must be treated with a recovery-first approach.

Farrell’s plan focuses on:

  • Declaring a fentanyl state of emergency, with more armed California National Guard officers to address open-air drug markets and trafficking.
  • Building a large-scale, 24/7 centralized intake center, staffed with social workers and medical professionals, to triage those in need and guide them through recovery.
  • Scrapping Breed’s failed Overdose Prevention Plan, which has enabled drug use, and shifting the focus to recovery-first and abstinence-based options.
  • Increasing police staffing levels to serve as a deterrent to drug dealing and public drug use, while also providing more recovery beds and detox opportunities for those in need.
  • Reforming pretrial detention to end the cycle of catch-and-release policies that Breed allowed to flourish, and ensuring that individuals revived with Narcan receive mandated treatment.

Mark Farrell’s vision is one of a cleaner, safer, and thriving San Francisco—a city where families can walk the streets without fear, where businesses can prosper, and where addiction is treated as a public health crisis with real solutions, not empty promises.

Time to Choose: Failed Leadership or Real Change?

San Franciscans deserve better than London Breed’s inconsistency and political gamesmanship. Under her watch, our city has fallen into chaos. Her policies have facilitated addiction, enabled lawlessness, and contributed to the deterioration of public safety.

Mark Farrell offers the real leadership San Francisco needs. He has a plan to save lives, restore safety, and clean up our streets. This election is a choice between more of the same chaos under Breed or a better, brighter future for San Francisco with Farrell at the helm.

The choice is yours. Vote for Mark Farrell. It’s time to fix 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.”

Fentanyl Breed: 3,000+ Deaths on Her Watch

San Francisco Mayor London Breed has become synonymous with the city’s worsening drug epidemic. Recently, a poll on X (formerly Twitter) dubbed her “Fentanyl Breed,” and the name couldn’t be more fitting. Since taking office, Breed’s policies and reforms have not only failed to curb the opioid crisis—they’ve exacerbated it, leading to over 3,000 overdose deaths during her tenure.

Fentanyl Breed
#FentanylBreed

Despite the good intentions behind harm reduction strategies and supervised drug consumption sites, the reality is that Breed’s leadership has enabled a deadly cycle of addiction. Rather than reducing harm, these policies have facilitated drug use and turned San Francisco into a haven for addicts. The result? A staggering 212.7% increase in overdose deaths since 2018.

A City in Crisis: The Data Speaks for Itself

Let’s start with the numbers. From 2014 to 2023, San Francisco experienced a sharp rise in drug overdose deaths. Under Ed Lee, overdose deaths increased by 46%. During Mark Farrell’s brief tenure, the increase was 16.7%. But under London Breed? Overdose deaths skyrocketed by 212.7%, an unprecedented escalation.

  • Ed Lee (2014-2017): 46% increase in overdose deaths
  • Mark Farrell (2018): 16.7% increase in overdose deaths
  • London Breed (2018-2023): 212.7% increase in overdose deaths

Under Breed, more than 3,000 San Franciscans have lost their lives to drug overdoses, many of these deaths tied to the rampant spread of fentanyl—a synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin. While fentanyl was already present in the drug supply before her time, Breed’s policies enabled the crisis to spiral out of control.

 

Harm Reduction or Harm Creation?

The cornerstone of Breed’s public health strategy has been harm reduction—policies designed to reduce the negative consequences of drug use rather than eliminate it altogether. This includes clean needle programs, naloxone distribution, and her administration’s active push for supervised drug consumption sites. But with fentanyl’s extreme potency, these strategies have done little more than prolong the inevitable: death.

Instead of confronting the root of the crisis—addiction—Breed’s policies have normalized drug use. Supervised drug consumption sites, while touted as life-saving, are illegal under federal and state law. Despite this, Breed’s administration has been hell-bent on bringing these sites to the city, turning San Francisco into a lawless zone for drug users. These policies do not just overlook the problem; they perpetuate it.

Supervised Consumption Sites: Illegal and Dangerous

Supervised drug consumption sites are the most blatant example of Breed’s failed leadership. These sites, where individuals can legally use drugs under supervision, directly violate the Controlled Substances Act and California state law. Despite these legal barriers, Breed’s administration has pushed forward with plans to open these sites, effectively encouraging illegal activity within the city’s borders.

Let’s be clear: supervised drug consumption sites may reduce overdose deaths in the short term, but they also facilitate continued drug use. These policies send a message that drug use is acceptable, even supported. By creating these safe zones for drug users, Breed is actively attracting addicts to San Francisco. The result is not just more drug use but an influx of users from other cities and states, drawn to San Francisco by its reputation as a place where drug use is easy and consequence-free.

This is not harm reduction—this is harm creation.

Fentanyl: The Deadly Consequence of Breed’s Policies

Fentanyl’s extreme addictive nature and lethality cannot be overstated. Even the smallest miscalculation in dosage can lead to immediate overdose and death. Breed’s harm reduction policies, while perhaps effective with less potent drugs, fall dangerously short in the face of fentanyl. The distribution of clean needles, naloxone, and discussions of supervised consumption sites have not curbed the crisis—they have fueled it.

Breed’s refusal to prioritize aggressive treatment options or enforce stricter regulations on drug use has left San Francisco drowning in fentanyl. And with more people than ever flocking to the city for its lenient drug policies, the situation is spiraling out of control. Instead of stopping the flood, Breed has opened the floodgates.

Attracting More Drug Users to San Francisco

It is no coincidence that San Francisco has seen an increase in its homeless and drug-using population. Breed’s policies have created a magnet for those seeking a city where drugs can be obtained, used, and even facilitated by city officials. San Francisco has become a place where public drug use is rampant, and the city’s resources are overwhelmed.

By failing to enforce the law and instead advocating for policies that directly contradict federal and state drug laws, Breed and her administration have attracted thousands of drug users to the city, making the crisis worse. She violated her oath of office by promoting illegal activity and turning San Francisco into a sanctuary for addiction rather than a city of rehabilitation and recovery.

A Betrayal of Public Trust

Breed’s policies do more than violate the law—they betray the public trust. Every politician swears an oath to uphold the law, but Breed’s active support for policies that enable illegal drug use directly contravenes this responsibility. Instead of focusing on long-term solutions to addiction, Breed has perpetuated short-term fixes that do nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis.

Supervised consumption sites, clean needle programs, and naloxone distribution are not enough to combat the power of fentanyl. By enabling drug use, Breed is not just turning her back on the law—she is turning her back on the people of San Francisco. The thousands of overdose deaths on her watch are a direct result of her failed leadership.

The Lives Lost on Breed’s Watch

With more than 3,000 overdose deaths under her leadership, London Breed has overseen the deadliest period in San Francisco’s modern history. Harm reduction, as practiced by her administration, has failed to reduce harm. Instead, it has created an environment where addiction flourishes, drug users flock to the city, and public safety is jeopardized.

The city needs leadership that will stand up to this crisis with real solutions—treatment, enforcement, and rehabilitation—not policies that enable addiction. London Breed has failed San Francisco. It’s time to recognize the deadly impact of her decisions and demand accountability.

San Francisco’s residents deserve a city that fights for their safety, not one that perpetuates harm. The crisis must end, and it begins with rejecting the failed policies of “Fentanyl Breed.”

Chart 1: Overdose Deaths Under London Breed

Fentanyl Breed: 3,000+ Deaths on Her Watch

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 2: Timeline of Harm Reduction Efforts and Overdose Deaths

Fentanyl Breed: 3,000+ Deaths on Her Watch

 

 

 

 

 

“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.”

Mayor Breed’s Reckless Policies Endanger Public Safety – Violent Felons Are Roaming Free

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 8, 2024

CONTACT: San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Phone: (415) 696-2428

Mayor Breed’s Reckless Policies Endanger Public Safety – Violent Felons Are Roaming Free

San Francisco, CA — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is deeply alarmed by Mayor London Breed’s statements during her press conference on October 3rd, where she doubled down on a failed policy that is putting violent felons back on the streets. In her speech, Breed referred to ankle monitoring for violent criminals as an “important reform tool” — a shocking defense of a system that has already endangered countless lives.

The fact is, Breed’s so-called reforms have put violent offenders, including rapists, attempted murderers, and domestic abusers, back into our neighborhoods. These are not just petty criminals; these are dangerous individuals who should be behind bars, not walking our streets with nothing more than an ankle monitor. Recent investigations have revealed that nearly half of the criminals on this program violate the terms of their release — many cut off their devices and reoffend, some committing more violent crimes​.

Mayor Breed’s policies are not just misguided, they are lethal. Every day, the people of San Francisco are left wondering: How many more lives must be lost before she realizes this experiment in “reform” is a failure? The purpose of our jails is to protect the public from violent offenders, yet Breed continues to fight for policies that put our community in harm’s way.

Under Breed’s watch, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has been defunded and understaffed, with hiring freezes crippling the department’s ability to even monitor those criminals on ankle monitoring. This lack of oversight is a ticking time bomb. The deputies who remain are overworked and overwhelmed, trying to keep track of hundreds of individuals who pose serious risks to public safety​.

“Mayor Breed’s so-called reform policies have violently injured and almost killed innocent San Franciscans,” said Ken Lomba, President of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association. “By pushing to keep violent felons on the streets with ankle monitors, she has made our city less safe. We’ve seen tragic consequences because of these failed reforms, and it’s only a matter of time before more lives are lost. Our citizens deserve protection from dangerous criminals, not a revolving door that puts them back into our neighborhoods.”

How many more innocent lives will be lost because of Breed’s reckless decisions? Our community deserves better. The safety of San Franciscans should never take a back seat to so-called reforms that have already proven to fail. Mayor Breed’s policies are destroying the fabric of our city, and it’s time to stop putting violent felons back on our streets.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association calls on Mayor Breed to end this dangerous program immediately and to take real action that prioritizes the safety of all San Franciscans.

Sources:

Pre-Trail Electronic Monitoring Program

Suspect in attack on elderly Asian woman in SF was on ankle monitor

Defendants on ankle monitors in SF commit violations with little consequence

13x felon cuts off an­kle mon­i­tor and puts man in in­ten­sive care with a shat­tered skull

About the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) represents the men and women of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. Our mission is to promote public safety, support the needs of our members, and advocate for policies that keep our communities safe.

For more information, please contact us at  (415) 696-2428.

Progress in Reforming the Testing Process and Recruitment Efforts for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

Sheriff Paul MiyamotoToday, September 9th, 2024, marks a pivotal moment for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. President Ken Lomba met with Sheriff Miyamoto to address two critical issues impacting our staffing and recruitment efforts: reforming the testing process and implementing second-step pay for new applicants.

After a productive discussion, Sheriff Miyamoto agreed to make these vital changes. The agreement reflects a shared understanding of the pressing need to enhance our recruitment efforts and address the ongoing staffing shortages that have hampered the department’s ability to operate at full capacity.

Why These Changes Matter

For years, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has faced significant staffing challenges. Recruiting new deputies has become increasingly difficult due to a competitive job market and a hiring process that hasn’t adapted to these new realities. The proposed changes to the testing process and the introduction of second-step pay for new hires will make the department more attractive to qualified candidates.

Second-step pay, in particular, is a game-changer. It allows new recruits to start at a higher salary tier, making the financial package more competitive and enticing. This is a major step in retaining talent that might otherwise be drawn to other law enforcement agencies offering better starting compensation.

Impact on the Community and the Department

Sheriff Miyamoto’s decision to implement these changes is expected to significantly improve our ability to recruit and retain deputy sheriffs. The impact will extend beyond just filling vacant positions; it will enable the department to restore its full operational capabilities and ensure the safety of both our staff and the community.

With adequate staffing, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office will be better equipped to manage its duties across various sectors, including jail management, court security, and community policing. Enhanced staffing levels also mean reducing the strain on current deputies, many of whom have been working overtime to cover the shortfall, which has led to fatigue and increased safety risks.

Looking Ahead

We are optimistic about the future. These reforms will not only help us address the immediate staffing shortages but also position the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office for long-term success. A well-staffed department is essential for maintaining the safety and well-being of our city, and these changes represent a significant step toward achieving that goal.

We extend our thanks to Sheriff Miyamoto for his collaboration and leadership on this issue. His recognition of the need for reform will have a lasting positive impact on the department and the broader community we serve.

As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the progress of these reforms and ensure that they are implemented effectively. We are confident that these changes will lead to a stronger, safer, and more efficient San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.