Car break-ins are a major problem in San Francisco, with thousands of incidents reported every year. In fact, San Francisco has one of the highest rates of car break-ins in the country. This can be a frustrating and costly experience for car owners. However, there is a solution that can help reduce the risk of break-ins – security window tinting. Make it difficult for the thieves.
Security window tinting is a type of window film that is designed to make your car’s windows stronger and more difficult to break. It works by adding an extra layer of protection to your car’s windows that makes it much harder for a thief to break in. Here are some of the ways that security window tinting can help reduce break-ins in San Francisco:
- Deterrent Effect
Thieves are often looking for easy targets – cars that they can break into quickly and without being noticed. By adding security window tinting to your car, you are making it more difficult and time-consuming for a thief to break in. This can act as a deterrent, making your car less attractive to potential thieves.
- Reduced Visibility
Security window tinting also reduces the visibility into your car, making it harder for thieves to see what’s inside. This can help prevent smash-and-grab break-ins where a thief breaks a window and quickly grabs whatever they can see. With security window tinting, they are less likely to see anything valuable inside and may move on to an easier target.
- Increased Durability
Security window tinting is made of a strong, multi-layered film that is 4 mil. in thickness and designed to hold your car’s windows together even if they are shattered. This can help prevent a thief from gaining access to your car, and also reduces the risk of injury if the windows are broken during a break-in.
- Heat Reduction
In addition to its security benefits, window tinting can also help reduce the amount of heat that enters your car, making it more comfortable to drive and reducing the need for air conditioning. This can be particularly beneficial in San Francisco’s warm climate.
- UV Protection
Window tinting can also protect your car’s interior from the damaging effects of the sun’s UV rays, which can cause fading and cracking over time. This can help maintain the value of your car and keep it looking newer for longer.
Installing security window tinting on your car is a relatively quick and easy process that can be done by a professional. Once installed, the tinting requires little to no maintenance and can last for many years. It is also a cost-effective solution for reducing the risk of break-ins in San Francisco. Here is an example of security window tint and some locations of installers https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b00016706/
In conclusion, if you want to protect your car from break-ins in San Francisco, security window tinting is a smart investment. It can act as a deterrent, reduce visibility, increase durability, and provide additional benefits such as heat reduction and UV protection. By adding this extra layer of protection to your car’s windows, you can enjoy greater peace of mind and reduce the risk of becoming a victim of car break-ins.
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.
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.
Dear Chief Scott,
I am writing to express my concern about the current state of the San Francisco Police Department and to offer a potential solution to improve efficiency and increase police staffing.
As you are aware, the police department is facing mass retirements and is currently understaffed. This is a major issue, as it leaves our city vulnerable to increased crime and puts an undue burden on the remaining officers who are trying to do their best to serve and protect the community.
In order to address this issue, I believe it would be beneficial to reduce the size of the police department and turn over some functions, such as the SFO, to the San Francisco Sheriff. By reassessing the roles and responsibilities of the department, we can redirect resources towards increasing the number of police officers in San Francisco, particularly in high-need areas like the Tenderloin district.
I understand that such a change would require careful consideration and planning, but I believe it is a common sense solution that would ultimately improve public safety for San Franciscans. By streamlining the department and focusing on core functions, we can ensure that your SFPD officers are able to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.
I also believe that turning over auxiliary functions, such as the SFO, marine unit, and port patrols, to the Sheriff’s Department makes sense. The Sheriff’s Department is equipped to handle these types of tasks, and it would free up additional resources for the SFPD to focus on crime reduction and public safety in the city.
Given the current state of public safety in San Francisco, we have concerns for the well-being of our union members who reside in the city. I hope that you will seriously consider this proposal and take any necessary steps to make it a reality. As the leader of the SFPD, it is your responsibility to ensure that the department is functioning at its best and that our city is as safe as possible. I believe that implementing these changes would be a step in the right direction towards achieving that goal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
At some time prior to July 8, 2022, the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Office decided to create a pilot program in County Jail #3 (“CJ3”) in housing unit 5. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office had two employees evaluate the functionality of the program and identify any concerns they saw with the changes proposed by the Sheriff’s Office. These deputies found numerous safety concerns that made it difficult to perform the regular safety checks of the inmates in some cases and completely impossible in other cases.
Despite the safety concerns, on July 8, 2022, the changes were implemented.
CJ3 has multiple housing units that are the shape of a circle with inmate cells on the perimeter of the circle. This circle is divided into to sides, the A and B sides. Inmates from A cannot cross over to B and vice versa. On one side of the dividing line is a “Crow’s Nest” or a tower with windows that can look out over portions of both the A and B sides of the housing unit. This Crow’s Nest has previously not been used.
Prior to July 8, 2022, CJ 3 has always had 2 deputies working a general population housing unit. One each on the A and B sides. These deputies worked on the floor with the inmates.
Safety Checks are required to be done every hour. There are state laws, known as Title 15 rules, as well as a San Francisco Sheriff’s Office policy, CODM 4.04, which outline the minimum requirements for these safety checks. The purpose of the checks is to maintain safety and security in the jail for staff, visitors and the inmates. Some of the requirements of these checks include noting the skin color of the inmate, the rise and fall of the chest, movement that indicates life, looking for any signs of illness or distress, inspection of cell doors and windows and a search for any apparent contraband or hazards.
These safety checks were completed by the deputies working on the floor but walking up to each inmate cell door and observing the inmate, the cell and surrounding area. Sometimes, at night, a flashlight would be required to properly check the welfare of the inmates.
On July 8, 2022, this changed. No longer would there be any floor deputies. Now, only one deputy, instead of two, would monitor all the inmates by him/herself, from the Crow’s Nest. In the event of an emergency, the deputy in the Crow’s Nest was not to leave and assist an inmate having a medical emergency, being attacked, or attempting to harm himself, instead, the deputy is now required to call for help. Deputies who are roaming around the rest of the jail would then have to respond and handle the situation, wasting valuable time.
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office was unable to remedy all the safety concerns raised by the two employees who evaluated the new Crow’s Nest plan. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office administration directed Crow’s Nest deputies to utilize binoculars to assist them in seeing the inmates better. While this may help with viewing some of the inmates when the lights are on, they do little to help at night and cannot solve the problem of the inability to see some of the cells at all, with or without binoculars.
The DSA sent a letter to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office on July 18, 2022 and it was resent to the Director of Employee Relations, on July 22, 2022. This letter demanded that the new Crow’s Nest practice stop until the parties can meet and confer over the impacts and effects of it. Numerous impacts and effects were listed in this notice.
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office responded on July 26, 2022, refusing to maintain the status quo until the parties were able to meet and confer.
Within days of its implementation, a fight broke out in one of the cells in the evening and it was not discovered until the next morning. This is evidence of the lack of safety the DSA was concerned with when it demanded the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office cease and desist its new Crow’s Nest practice.
March 28, 2022 RFI.
On March 28, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the dates, times, and shifts that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office fell below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. (Exhibit X) Arbitrator Alexander Cohen previously resolved a grievance filed by DSA when the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office previously violated the Minimum Staffing section of the MOU. Arbitrator Cohen issued his ruling in favor of the DSA in 2017 in favor of the DSA. In his decision, he awarded damages to be paid to those members who worked on shifts that were below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. Because the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office continued to fall below the minimum staffing, the DSA filed a new grievance on March 4, 2022. The RFI filed on March 28, 2022 was to gather necessary and relevant information to calculate the damages incurred by the DSA members as the result of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s current grievance for again violating the MOU. (Lomba Decl. ¶ 9)
The March 28, 2022 RFI was acknowledged received by the City Attorney’s office and forwarded to the Employee Relations Division (ERD) to respond. No response from ERD was ever received. (Howell Decl. ¶ 6 and 9; Exhibit 3) On May 2, 2022, the DSA followed up with ERD and the City Attorney’s office and demanded production of the RFI by May 9, 2022, which never came. (Howell Decl. ¶ 10 and 11; Exhibit 5)
On May 13, 2022, the DSA filed a First Amended Unfair Labor Practice Charge in PERB Case No. SF-CE-1794-M to have this matter added to that current litigation. On June 7, 2022, after filing the amendment to the PERB Charge, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office produced documents responsive to the March 28, 2022 RFI. Judge Cloughesy declined to amend the Charge and Complaint in that matter to include this RFI issue but gave leave to refile this matter with PERB.
February 16, 2022 RFI.
On February 16, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the names, dates, and hours of Overtime Pay DSA members were denied. Information was also requested to ascertain the history, deliberation, changes, analysis and communications regarding Administrative Code section 18.13 involving the maximum permissible overtime. This information is necessary for the DSA to enforce the contract at a grievance proceeding and is unable to establish the damages or the individual DSA members affected, without the response to the RFI.
The February 16, 2022 RFI was acknowledge received by the City Attorney’s Office on February 22, 2022, via email. (EXHIBIT XX – email from KNS to Rapoport and back) Having received no responsive documents, the DSA’s counsel sent an email on August 2, 2022 to demand production. (Exhibit XX – Email KNS to)
San Francisco, CA
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.
In 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.
On the morning of January 5, 2016, San Francisco Deputy Sheriff D. Perez, while off duty and walking his dog, observed two men behaving erratically and shadowing a younger man, possibly with the intention of robbing him.
Deputy Perez immediately texted a friend at the San Francisco Department of Emergency Management dispatch center and learned that two men matching their description were being sought by the San Francisco Police Department.
Deputy Perez provided the SFPD with the suspects’ location. Once the suspects were detained, officers informed Deputy Sheriff Perez that the men were also suspects in other robberies and attempted robberies in the area.
“In this situation Deputy Perez used his law enforcement experience while off duty to recognize potential criminal activity,” said Sgt. M. Kilgariff of San Francisco Sheriff”s Department Civil Section. “We are proud of his quick thinking and his resourcefulness in identifying the two suspects.”