Tag: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department

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

High Crime in San Francisco and the Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog

San Francisco, like many other cities, faces the challenge of crime in certain neighborhoods. In such areas, residents often seek ways to enhance their security measures and protect their homes and families. One effective option is owning a protection dog, which can serve as a deterrent to intruders and provide a sense of safety. In this article, we will explore the high crime rate in San Francisco and discuss the benefits of owning a protection dog. Additionally, we will highlight some of the best breeds of dogs that are commonly used as protection dogs.

Protection Dogs

High Crime in San Francisco: San Francisco has faced challenges with crime, particularly property crime, in certain neighborhoods. According to recent data from the San Francisco Police Department, there has been an increase in crimes such as burglary, theft, and auto theft in some areas of the city. These incidents can cause residents to feel vulnerable and anxious about the safety of their homes and families.

Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog: Owning a protection dog can offer several benefits, especially in high-crime areas like San Francisco. Here are some advantages of having a protection dog:

  1. Enhanced Security: A well-trained protection dog can serve as a visible deterrent to potential intruders. The presence of a protection dog can deter criminals from attempting to break into a property, as they are less likely to risk encountering a trained and vigilant dog.
  2. Effective Crime Prevention: Protection dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential threats, such as intruders or suspicious activity. Their keen senses, such as heightened hearing and scent detection, can help prevent crimes from occurring or escalating.
  3. Companionship: In addition to providing security, protection dogs can also be loving and loyal companions. They can offer companionship and emotional support to their owners, which can be particularly comforting in high-crime areas where residents may feel anxious or unsafe.
  4. Peace of Mind: Knowing that you have a trained protection dog can provide peace of mind for homeowners and their families. Protection dogs can provide a sense of security, knowing that they are trained to protect their home and loved ones.

Best Breeds of Dogs for Protection: Not all dog breeds are suitable for protection work, as temperament, size, and behavior traits vary among different breeds. Here are some of the best breeds of dogs commonly used as protection dogs:

  1. German Shepherd: German Shepherds are known for their intelligence, versatility, and loyalty. They are often used as police and military dogs due to their ability to be trained for various tasks, including protection work.
  2. Belgian Malinois: Belgian Malinois are highly energetic and intelligent dogs that excel in protection work. They are known for their speed, agility, and strong work ethic, and are often used in police and military roles.
  3. Doberman Pinscher: Doberman Pinschers are known for their loyalty and protective instincts. They are intelligent and trainable, with a natural ability to guard their home and family.
  4. Rottweiler: Rottweilers are powerful and protective dogs that have a natural instinct to guard their family and territory. They are known for their strength and courage, making them effective protection dogs.
  5. Boxer: Boxers are strong and athletic dogs that can excel in protection work. They are known for their loyalty, intelligence, and protective nature.
  6. Great Dane: While not as common as some of the other breeds on this list, Great Danes can also make excellent protection dogs. Despite their large size, they are known for their gentle and friendly nature, but can also be protective when needed.

Protection DogIt’s important to note that while these breeds are commonly used as protection dogs, not all individual dogs of these breeds may possess the necessary temperament, training, and behavior traits to excel in protection work. Proper training and socialization from a young age are crucial to ensure that a protection dog is well-behaved, obedient, and capable of handling potential threats in a controlled manner.

Conclusion: In high-crime areas like San Francisco, owning a protection dog can provide an added layer of security and peace of mind for homeowners and their families. The presence of a well-trained protection dog can deter intruders, prevent crimes, and offer companionship and emotional support. However, it’s important to carefully consider the responsibilities and requirements of owning a protection dog, including proper training, socialization, and ongoing care.

If you’re interested in owning a protection dog, it’s recommended to work with a reputable breeder or professional dog trainer who specializes in protection dogs. They can help you choose the right breed and individual dog that fits your specific needs and lifestyle, and provide guidance on training and care.

Remember that owning a protection dog is a significant commitment, and it’s important to be prepared for the responsibilities and challenges that come with it. However, for those who are willing to invest the time, effort, and resources into proper training and care, a well-trained protection dog can offer invaluable benefits in enhancing home security and providing peace of mind in high-crime areas.

SFPOA’s “SFO Training” Debunked

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has recently raised concerns on Twitter about advanced officer training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at the city’s airport, SFO. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that the training in question is not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests.

SFO Airport Police

The “training” referred to by the San Francisco Police Officer Association is the California POST Aviation Security Training, a one-week, 40-hour course available to all law enforcement officers, not just the SFPD. The course covers the history of aviation security, introduction to the airport environment, criminal threat to the aviation industry, agencies and jurisdictions involved in airport security (such as the TSA, FBI, CBP, and USSS), legal aspects of aviation security, and the responsibilities of law enforcement officers working in an airport setting.

This training is not particularly difficult, and can easily be completed by San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to meet the requirement to work at SFO. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of the police officers currently working at the airport back to the city, it will alleviate the staffing pressures on the SFPD and allow for a more efficient use of resources.

One solution is to grandfather in any SFPD officers close to retirement at the airport, and then work with the Sheriff to create a phased staffing plan that would allow for a percentage of police officers at the airport to return to SF to patrol in the City. This phased approach would ensure a smooth transition and allow for adequate staffing at the airport while also relieving pressure on the SFPD.

In conclusion, the minimum training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at SFO are not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of its officers back to the city, it will alleviate staffing pressures and allow for a more efficient use of resources. The SFDSA will work with the Sheriff to create a functional staffing plan and assist with recruiting to ensure a smooth transition.

SFPOA Makes Childish Attack on SFDSA

On January 14, 2023 at 8:12 PM, the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) made a statement that was misleading and contained falsehoods. The SFPOA claimed that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) cannot staff the jails, but this is not true. According to mandatory guidelines, SFSO Deputy Sheriffs are required to staff the jails.  The SFSO staffs the jails on voluntary overtime or mandated overtime. The SFSO is working to increase recruitment and reduce overtime, and has made significant progress in recruiting new Deputy Sheriffs.

The SFPOA also claimed that the SFSO lacks the training required to perform their duties. This is also untrue. The SFSO has the same POST training certifications as police officers and more. The only additional training required by the California Peace Officers Standards of Training is an Aviation Security Training course, which is only a 40 hour course. The SFPOA is presenting this as a significant hurdle, but it is not.  Additional training can be easily accomplished. See our current list of training in our article “San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are highly trained individuals.”

The SFPOA also stated that the SFSO lacks the training to respond to a terrorist attack. The SFDSA strongly disagrees with this claim. In the event of a terrorist attack, the SFPD will turn to the SFSO for assistance. The SFSO has a long history of responding to large scale emergencies such as riots, the Loma Prieto Earthquake, and forest fires. The SFSO also responded to the recent COVID-19 pandemic and worked 24/7 to protect the public.

SFPOA Childish Attack with false info

 

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) has a dedicated Emergency Services Unit (ESU) that includes a Special Response Team, a Crisis Negotiation Team, and a Radio Telephone Operator Team. These teams respond to emergencies within the Department, City, and County of San Francisco, as well as mutual aid requests from other jurisdictions. The ESU also includes a Mobile Field Force (MFF) that is trained to respond to major critical incidents, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) devices. The MFF is led by a Platoon Commander, an Executive Officer and is divided into four squads.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has misleadingly claimed that it is not possible for Deputy Sheriffs to work at the airport. However, the SFPD arrest data at the airport is minimal, with an average of approximately 300 arrests per year, and approximately 130 SFPD officers (staffing data from 2020). Additionally, the SFPD has 27 Sergeants at the airport, which is an unusual ratio of 1 supervisor to every 5 police officers. It is clear that the level of arrests at the airport is low and it would be a misuse of City resources to have SFPD at the airport. We will provide updated data as it becomes available.

As stated on Twitter prior to the SFPOA’s misleading post, it is possible for the SFSO to staff the airport. First, we can grandfather in any PD Officer close to retirement. Second, a percentage of the police officers at the airport can return to SF to patrol. And third, the SFDSA will work with the Sheriff to create a functional staffing plan and assist with recruiting. This can be done in a phased approach, not overnight.

SFDSA Demands Civil Grand Jury Investigation Against the Sheriff’s Office

San Francisco, CA, June 21, 2022 – – Staffing in the San Francisco Jails has become dangerously unsafe with inmates attacking inmates, nurses, sheriff deputies and civilian employees.  The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office and City and County of San Francisco have understaffed the jails to a dangerously low level, they have not prioritized funding to hire deputies, they have not even prioritized retention of current deputies. 

In an email from SFDSA President Ken Lomba to Sheriff Miyamoto, President Lomba stated that the SFDSA has been advocating for hiring and warning Sheriff’s Office Management about the staffing problems for over a decade. Two and a half years of which Miyamoto was Sheriff.  President Lomba said that the increased burden of work due to intentional lack of hiring has turned into “sweatshop labor.”  The SFDSA has filed a Civil Grand Jury Complaint demanding the Sheriff’s Office and the City and County of San Francisco be investigated.

Since 2014 there have been 3 separate reports from the SF Civil Grand Jury warning about the effects of going below minimum staffing levels and to expedite hiring instead of forced overtime. There was even a warning of a possible violation of Title 15 in the future if nothing changes. Unfortunately, the Sheriff’s Office has failed to hire the proper number of deputies to create a safe working environment for both the deputies and inmates. The minimum staffing levels have gotten worse, and bottom line: the deputies are exhausted.  

In the past reports, the Grand Jury found that because of the dwindling number of total deputies employed by the City and County of San Francisco, the excessive overtime and shortage of bodies did not allow for the important inmate programs in existence let alone increase the inmate programs that were recommended. Furthermore, the recommended training for deputies could not take place or was inadequate to deal with the mental health and substance abuse as well as many other issues the housed population experiences.

Ultimately, this Grand Jury recommended on three separate occasions in 2014, 2016, and 2017 to “expedite hiring to reduce overtime.” The Grand Jury’s recommendations have never been followed and the situation has become untenable as the number of deputies is lower now than it was when this Grand Jury made these strong recommendations.

CCSF JAILS ARE NOW FALLING BELOW MINIMUM STAFFING REGULARLY

Just days ago, on June 9, 2022, Sheriff Miyamoto issued a memo to all City and County of San Francisco jail staff identifying his intentions of – operating below minimum staffing – for a period of the next 8-9 months! The City and County of San Francisco has clearly recognized the futility of giving the appearance of reaching minimum staffing and has now admitted that it cannot exercise its duty to do so. 

The City and County of San Francisco is in fierce competition with its neighboring counties, Alameda and San Mateo, for jail staff. Alameda has been under a consent decree to hire more jail staff. It would be a shame for the City and County of San Francisco to be under similar governmental oversight. The City and County of San Francisco can expedite the hiring of staff but has not made it a priority, at the expense of the overworked and exhausted jails staff.

The Civil Grand Jury Complaint against the Sheriff’s Office and the City and County of San Francisco was filed on June 20th, 2022.  This Grand Jury should demand answers from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office as to why it has failed to comply with its 3 separate recommendations since 2014.

View the complaint here, Civil Grand Jury Complaint Against SF Sheriff

Contact:

SFDSA President Ken Lomba
415-696-2428
San Francisco, CA

Website: https://sanfranciscodsa.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SanFranciscoDSA
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SanFranciscoDeputySheriffsAssociation

Forced Overtime at San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has a history of conducting salary savings.  Salary savings is a scheme to reduce hiring and offer overtime to existing employees.  In small cases it may be okay since the department can offer overtime to volunteers but over the years the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has taken it to an extreme ordering our deputy sheriff members mandated overtime involuntarily.

For the purposes of this article, “salary savings” will be defined as the practice of keeping open positions unfilled so as to reduce budgetary outlays. In the practice, current employees are asked and often mandated to work overtime hours to cover the gaps created by non-hiring. As numerous articles and internal documents will show, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has engaged in salary savings for at least the last decade. While this has resulted in higher wages due to overtime payments, it has more significantly resulted in force attrition and individual exhaustion. This practice is not sustainable.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has at times requested and at times mandated that its deputies work excessive hours of overtime to cover staffing shortages. As the Controller’s Annual Overtime Report (FY 2017-18) states, “[t]he distribution of overtime in the Department is highly skewed.” It has rewarded some, those willing to work extravagant amounts of time, with salaries far exceeding their base and it has also hastened the retirement of those who value their days off and their health. Meanwhile, until very recently, the Department has not incurred new pensions or benefit costs and has not had to train new employees sufficient to fill its roster. As numerous documents have shown, by encouraging and demanding overtime and by failing to hire new deputies, the Department has engaged in salary savings for at least the last decade.

Fast forward to present time, the Sheriff’s Office has gone further with this practice and implemented more salary savings.  As of a January 2021, the Sheriff’s Office had approx. 203 vacant full time employee openings.  It most likely is even higher now.  The Sheriff Office now mandates more overtime and blocks volunteers, in most cases, from working overtime forcing more deputy sheriffs to work involuntarily and in most cases forced to work with last minute notice.  You can only imagine how disruptive this is to the deputy sheriffs’ lives and health.

SF Deputy SheriffIn February 2021, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office prepared their budget request, within that request they only asked for funding for 44 deputy sheriff positions.  This number is extremely low with deputies retiring and leaving to other agencies as well as the existing approx. -203 full time employee vacancies.

In August 2020 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that 19 out of 20 of the City’s Top Biggest Overtime Earners were deputy sheriffs.  That brought a lot of attention to the Sheriff’s Office and could expose the salary savings scheme to the voters.  So what they did next should shock you!  Instead of hiring more deputies to reduce the overtime, they are now forcing more deputies to work overtime.  They are restricting volunteers and forcing more involuntarily.  Is this a San Francisco value?

The staffing shortage not only effects the safety of employees and public but it also affects the currently incarcerated people.  Lawsuits are mounting for not allowing the currently incarcerated to have exercise time, walk time, sunshine time and now law suits over sleep deprivation.  The next lawsuit will most likely be a federal class action lawsuit over the lack of staff and conditions in the jail for violating the rights of the currently incarcerated.

While businesses continue to struggle and unemployment exceeds six percent the City gained a budget surplus of $125 Million this fiscal year 2020-2021.  So it makes you wonder why the Sheriff’s Office is so timid with it’s budget requests with such a staffing deficit.  

Download our white paper on San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Salary Savings.

Sheriff’s Deputies Sworn-in as Special Deputy U.S. Marshal’s

On Wednesday, August 13, 2014, nine members of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department were sworn in as Special Deputy Marshals by Northern District of California United States Marshal Donald O’Keefe. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, Undersheriff Federico Rocha and Assistant Sheriff Paul Miyamoto were in attendance at the swearing in ceremony. Undersheriff Rocha is the former Northern District of California United States Marshal, serving from 2003 to 2010. Continue reading “Sheriff’s Deputies Sworn-in as Special Deputy U.S. Marshal’s” →