How Proposition E reduces oversight of the San Francisco Police Department

Proposition E passed on March 5, 2024 in a San Francisco election. Mayor London Breed supported the bill, along with San Francsico County Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Catherine Stefani, and Joel Engardio. The San Francisco Republican Party were ardent supporters of the bill while the San Francisco Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California opposed the proposition.

Proposition E removes a lot of oversight of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). In addition to removing certain police oversight authority from the Police Commission, Proposition E also amends existing laws passed in 2019 that protect San Franciscans from invasive, untested, or biased police technologies.

Prior to the passage of Proposition E, if police wanted to acquire a new technology, they had to go through a procedure known as Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS). The officers were required to explain the need for the new technology as well as provide a detailed use policy to the democratically-elected Board of Supervisors, who then voted on it. The CCOPS process allowed for public comment so the people could voice their support for, concerns about, or opposition to the new technology.

The CCOPS procedure is meant to ensure that when police want new technology that may have significant impacts on communities, those voices have an opportunity to be heard and considered. SFPD used the CCOPS procedure to get new technological capabilities as recently as Fall 2022. However, Proposition E removed the CCOPS protective measure designed to bring communities into the conversation about public safety. The SFPD can use any technology for a full year without publishing an official policy about how they would use the technology or allowing community members to voice their concerns. This does not allow for any police accountability.

There is an incredible interest in police accountability that derives from the extensive powers that the police have available to them and the capacity to use these powers in a way that impacts the rights of citizens. This, of course, refers to the powers of arrest, search, and seizure. The use of these powers can damage the reputations of citizens and deprive them of their freedoms, even if unintended.

Proposition E denies CCOPS the ability to voice concerns regarding police activity. It is becoming more common for police to purchase and use surveillance equipment without residents of their towns even knowing what police are using or how they are using it. This means that dangerous technologies that other cities banned can be used without any transparency or accountability.

Police around the nation have begun using facial recognition technology (FRT) to help identify crime suspects. FRT is an AI-powered technology integrating machine learning algorithms that identify facial features and match a face to images of other faces from a database. It is the automated process of comparing two images of faces to determine whether they represent the same person.

The use of FRT algorithms has demonstrated racial bias in the identification of crime suspects. In June 2020, NPR and other news outlets reported on the arrest of Robert Williams, a black man. Bobby Allyn, "The Computer Got It Wrong: How Facial Recognition Led to False Arrest of Black Man," NPR, June 24, 2020. Williams is the first man in the United States to be arrested by mistake because of a racially biased FRT program. Law enforcement wrongfully arrested Williams after an FRT program misidentified him from an image captured by a security camera during a theft at a retail store in Michigan. The FRT program mistakenly matched the image to Williams' photo from his driver's license. Williams' case represents the potential consequences of law enforcement's use of racially biased FRT programs and technology that require oversight.

Prior to Proposition E, San Francisco supported a law that provided them with more information about and a voice in what technologies the police use. Proposition E removes the meaningful democratic check on the police's use of surveillance technologies. Further, under Proposition E, the SFPD can buy geolocation data being gathered from people's cells phones and sold on the data market without letting the public know or putting it to a vote before the city's governing body first.

These technologies could potentially harm residents of San Francisco. If the police integrate AI technology that has not been vetted, the potential for technology-related bias in crime suspect identification makes it clear that the technology needs to be implemented with caution. New technology can look at patterns and implement any bias behavior of the operators. It has the capacity to reflect and even exacerbate the worst aspects of biased behaviors. This can lead to increased over-policing and surveillance of marginalized communities. Further, it is important to note that studies have found that these technologies do not work. Proposition E permits the installation of surveillance and facial recognition cameras without approval from the police commission or board of supervisors.

The measure expands the use of drones and limits officers' administrative work. Under Proposition E, police can use body camera footage to comply with reporting requirements.

Oversight of the SFPD is of pivotal importance to the city of San Francisco's trust and confidence in law enforcement. The reality is that new technologies are being developed and released that have the potential to put the constitutional rights of individuals at risk. These technologies have shown the potential for racial bias as well as the potential for automating said bias in the future. Further, the new technology may prove to be too invasive and ineffective. Proponents of the proposition believe that it will make the city of San Francisco safer. However, opponents argue that Proposition E could exacerbate issues related to police accountability that should be given more consideration by the residents of San Francisco.