Review of The Patrol Specials

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER Ben Rosenfield

Controller
Monique Zmuda
Deputy Controller
August 30, 2010
The Honorable Gavin Newsom

Mayor, City and County of San Francisco
Room 200, City Hall
The Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors

Room 244, City Hall
The Honorable Members, San Francisco Police Commission

850 Bryant Street, Room 505
Dear Mayor Newsom, Ladies and Gentleman:
I am pleased to provide you the final report on the Patrol Special Study commissioned by the San
Francisco Police Commission and managed by the Controller’s Office. The purpose of the study
was to determine the following; if the operation of the Patrol Specials fit the mission, vision and
values of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), if the Patrol Specials operate in a
comparable fashion to other private police entities and if the Patrol Specials meet the needs of
stakeholders.
Key findings contained in the report include:

• Patrol Specials and their activities are private in nature;
• Patrol Specials have unique benefits not available to other security guards;
• Patrol Specials place a financial burden on the City;
• The similar appearance of Patrol Specials to the SFPD causes confusion;
• The Police Commission has legal oversight over the appointment of Patrol
Specials, but not over their day-to-day operations;
• Patrol Specials routinely violate the regulatory rules and procedures set out by the
Police Commission.
In response to these and other findings, consulting experts from the Public Safety Strategies
Group (PSSG), who performed the study on our behalf, recommend that the Patrol Specials no
longer operate under the City Charter. We recognize that the recommendations presented in the
report represent a significant change in the operation of the Patrol Specials, however, the Patrol
Specials would be able to continue to offer services to businesses and homeowners as security
guards. We appreciate your careful consideration of the findings in the attached report.
415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-554-7466
Review of the Patrol Specials
Final Report
Prepared for:
The City and County of San Francisco
Prepared by:
The Public Safety Strategies Group
August 30, 2010

Review of the Patrol Specials
August 27, 2010
Submitted to:
City and County of San Francisco
Controller’s Office
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm. 316
San Francisco, CA 94102
Submitted by:
Public Safety Strategies Group LLC
www.publicsafetystrategies.com
486 Main Street
West Townsend, Massachusetts 01474
Contact:
Kym Craven, Director
kcraven@publicsafetystrategies.com
978-314-7283
Or contact:
San Francisco Controller’s Office

City Hall Room 316
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
controller@sfgov.org
415-554-7500
San Francisco Patrol Specials
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
About Patrol Specials .................................................................................................. 2
Perceptions of the Patrol Special Program .................................................................. 2
Overview and History of Rules and Procedures and Significant Legal Action for Patrol
Specials and Assistants ............................................................................................... 2
Comparative Strategies for Ancillary Police Services .................................................. 2
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 3
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .................................................................................................................. 6
Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6
Information Gathering .................................................................................................. 7
Interviews and Observations .................................................................................... 7
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 8
About the San Francisco Patrol Specials ................................................................... 9
History of the Patrol Specials ....................................................................................... 9
Patrol Specials Beats and Staffing............................................................................... 9
Application Process of the Patrol and Assistant Patrol Specials................................ 10
Training Process of Patrol Specials ........................................................................... 10
Role of Patrol Specials .............................................................................................. 11
Authority of the Patrol Specials .................................................................................. 11
Patrol Special Uniforms ............................................................................................. 11
Equipment of the Patrol Specials ............................................................................... 12
Firearms ................................................................................................................. 12
Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 12
Estimated Annual Cost to Support Patrol Special Program ....................................... 13
Complaint and Discipline Procedures ........................................................................ 14
Complaints against Patrol Specials ........................................................................ 14
Lawsuits and Court Cases ......................................................................................... 14
Summary ................................................................................................................... 15
Input from Stakeholders of the Patrol Special Program .......................................... 16
Patrol Special Introductory Meeting ........................................................................... 16
Patrol Special Interviews ........................................................................................... 16
Client Interviews ........................................................................................................ 17
SFPD and Government Interviews ............................................................................ 18
PSSG Findings on Patrol Specials ............................................................................ 18
Uniforms and Equipment ........................................................................................ 19
Required Paperwork .............................................................................................. 19
Hours ..................................................................................................................... 19
Documentation of Activities .................................................................................... 20
Training .................................................................................................................. 20
Activities and Operation ......................................................................................... 21
I
Community Policing ................................................................................................... 22

Oversight ................................................................................................................ 26
Cost of Services ..................................................................................................... 26
Summary ................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 27
Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 27
Patrol Specials routinely violate the rules and procedures. .................................... 28
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 29
Patrol Specials ....................................................................................................... 29
Future Ancillary Police Services ............................................................................. 31
Summary ................................................................................................................... 32
Photographs
Photograph 1: Business District .................................................................................... 25

Photograph 2: Business District .................................................................................... 25
Photograph 3: Industrial Site ......................................................................................... 25
Photograph 4: Residential Site ...................................................................................... 25
Photograph 5: Village Site ............................................................................................. 25
Photograph 6: Neighborhood Site ................................................................................. 25
Attachments
Attachment A: About the City and County of San Francisco .................................... A1

Attachment B: Material Reviewed ............................................................................ B1
Attachment C: Patrol Special Court Cases...............................................................C1
Attachment D: Overview and History of Rules and Procedures and Significant Legal
Action for Patrol Specials and Assistants ...............................................................D1
Attachment E: Comparative Strategies for Ancillary Police Services ....................... E1
Attachment F: Patrol Special Rules and Regulations............................................... F1
Attachment G: Interim Rules ................................................................................... G1
II
Exe c u tive S u m m a ry
The following provides an overview of the Patrol Special Study commissioned by the
San Francisco Police Commission through the Controller’s Office in the City and County
of San Francisco 1 (herein referred to as the City), key findings, recommendations, and
next steps contained in this report.
Background
Patrol Specials 2 date back to the Gold Rush, when the city lacked an organized police
force. After the City formed the San Francisco Police Department, Patrol Specials
remained in effect, patrolling the neighborhoods of the city at the request and expense
of private citizens and merchants. At times, the number of Patrol Specials was in the
hundreds; now there remain a few dozen. Today, Patrol Specials own geographically
defined beats in the city and solicit clients within the confines of the beat. Patrol
Specials are part of the City Charter, with oversight and regulatory responsibility
assigned to the Police Commission.
During the past three decades, the roles and responsibilities of Patrol Specials have
been the center of much controversy. Conflicting opinions from Patrol Specials, many
segments of government, and the community have resulted in public discussion and,
upon escalation, lawsuits. Rule and policy changes enacted by the Police Commission
have resulted in multiple lawsuits, court filings, and discussions concerning the role of
Patrol Specials, their powers and status as peace officers, their connection with the
Police Commission, and their relationship with the SFPD.
The objective of this project is to study the operation of the San Francisco Patrol
Specials and make recommendations for future use of Patrol Specials or other ancillary
police services in San Francisco.
PSSG performed this study in accordance with the desire of the Commission and with
oversight from the Controller’s Office. The study began in April 2009 and concluded in
March 2010. The information contained in the report provides guidance on Patrol
Specials and their relevance to policing in the City.
This report contains the following sections: Methodology; About Patrol Specials;
Overview and History of Rules and Procedures and Significant Legal Action for Patrol
Specials and Assistants; Comparative Strategies for Ancillary Police Services;
Perceptions of the Patrol Special Program; and Conclusions and Recommendations.
1
Information regarding the City is contained in Attachment A.
2
Patrol Specials are referred to in several manners including Patrol Special Police, Patrol Special
Officers, SFPD Special Police and likely other terms unknown to PSSG. For consistency, the term Patrol
Specials is used in the report.
Public Safety Strategies 1

Methodology
This section outlines the approach utilized by PSSG for primary and secondary data
collection and data analysis. It also describes the scope, key evaluation questions, and
data gathering for purposes of the assessment.
About Patrol Specials
This section provides details of the evolution of Patrol Specials in the City and
information on topics including the organization of Patrol Specials, their authority,
training, appointment process, equipment, and services offered. Also contained in this
section is a review of historical changes and opinions rendered related to Patrol
Specials.
Perceptions of the Patrol Special Program

This section contains summary information obtained during the study. Included are the
results of interviews and meetings with the Patrols Specials and Assistants, clients,
SFPD personnel, and government officials. This section also includes information
gathered while reviewing files maintained by the SFPD and various documents provided
to PSSG during the study. The information gathered during the data collection phase of
the study, along with lessons learned through the review of other ancillary policing
strategies, shaped the findings and recommendations.
Overview and History of Rules and Procedures and Significant Legal

Action for Patrol Specials and Assistants
This section appears an attachment and provides a timetable of the rules and
procedures governing Patrol Specials, as well as a review of recent significant changes
to the rules and procedure 3 related to the operation of Patrol Specials. In 1970, the
Police Commission drafted the original rules and procedures. In 2008, the Police
Commission discussed updates, which they implemented in 2009 4.
Comparative Strategies for Ancillary Police Services
This section appears as an attachment and reviews the private policing approaches of
Portland, Oregon; Cincinnati, Ohio; and the State of North Carolina. In addition,
information on reserve police services and civilians provides an overview of how
communities incorporate both sworn and non-sworn individuals into policing activities.
3
The rules and procedures appear in Attachment B.
4
The interim rules appear in Attachment C.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section provides conclusions and recommendations that reflect the information
gathered during the course of the PSSG study of Patrol Specials. The
recommendations incorporate strategies used in other municipalities and reflect what is
in the best interest of the City.
Patrol Specials and their activities are private in nature.
• Private policing focuses on customers and individuals, whereas municipal or

public police focus on the community at large. Patrol Specials contract directly
with clients, provide services dictated by clients, and are not under the direction
and control of the City while performing these private services.
Patrol Specials secure unique benefits not available to other security guards.
• Outside of the municipal police, Patrol Specials have the exclusive right to patrol
the street and sidewalks of the City.
• Patrol Specials are privy to sensitive and restricted radio traffic as they operate
on police channels.
• Patrol Specials receive annual training at the SFPD academy with the SPFD
bearing the cost.
The Police Commission has legal oversight over the appointment of Patrol
Specials, but not the day-to-day operations.
• The Police Commission has legal oversight over the Patrols Specials, but lacks
the ability to direct and control their services, opening up the City to liability
issues.
Patrol Specials place a financial burden on the City.
• The conservative annual estimate of resources expended by the SPFD and City
on Patrol Specials is over $300,000 annually – excluding any resources used
during litigation.
• The SFPD assigns a full-time police officer as a liaison to oversee the Patrol
Special program.
• City entities such as the Police Commission, Office of the City Attorney,
Controller’s Office, and the SFPD administration allocate extensive resources to
address issues related to the Patrol Specials, including lawsuits.
• Patrol Specials do not compensate the City for use of Department of Emergency
Management dispatching services.
Patrol Specials routinely violate the rules and procedures.
• During this study, PSSG documented and/or witnessed the following infractions:

o Patrols Specials violated uniform, accountability and operational rules

and procedures.
o Patrol Specials committed several violations of traffic and parking laws.
• Patrol Specials responded to SFPD calls for service. 5
• Proof of vehicle and liability insurance were missing from several Patrol Specials’
files.
• Patrol Specials announced themselves as “Police”.
• Patrol Specials failed to have handouts/flyers/brochures approved by the SFPD,
and material lacks the required disclaimer.
The similar appearance of Patrol Specials to the SFPD causes confusion.
• Patrol Specials wear a “star” patch and uniform nearly identical to that worn by
the SFPD.
• Patrol Specials and their clients acknowledge the similar appearance and assert
that their perceived connection to the SFPD increases their credibility.
Future Implementation of the Patrol Specials program
PSSG recommends that the City discontinue the Patrol Specials program. Specifically,
the City should remove Patrol Specials from the City Charter and cease any connection
between the City and the Patrol Specials.
Removal of the Patrol Specials from the City Charter does not limit the ability of the
Patrol Specials to continue to operate their businesses as private security guards.
Assistant Patrol Specials already meet the standards to obtain a “Guard Card 6”. Patrol
Specials could do the same and continue to provide services to their clients as private
security guards.
Future Ancillary Police Services
PSSG recommends that the City and SFPD explore other programs to supplement the
municipal law enforcement services. Viable options for enhancing community safety
include public–private partnerships for policing, reserve officer programs, part-time
police officer programs, volunteers in police services 7, expanded use of civilian
personnel, contracting with private security firms, and other similar initiatives.
5
Calls for Service occur when dispatch provides information over the police radio regarding an issue
requiring police attention. Officers assigned to the area respond. Patrol Specials do not have the
authority to answer these calls without a direct request from the SFPD.
6
A “Guard Card” is the common name for the license granted to security guards after completing the
requirements.
7
The national Volunteer in Police Services (VIPS) Program, establish under the Citizens Corp, provides
support and resources for agencies interested in developing or enhancing a volunteer program and for
citizens who wish to volunteer their time and skills with a community law enforcement agency.

Summary
The topic of the role and activities of the Patrol Specials in the City is not a new one.
Various newspaper articles, Police Commission meeting minutes, and cases filed in the
courts document the issues over several decades. Through the years, and specifically
since the adoption of the rules and procedures in the 1970s, the relationship between
Patrol Specials and the City has deteriorated. Attempts to coordinate the services of
Patrol Specials to align with the needs of the City appear to have failed. At this time,
Patrol Specials put a financial burden on the City, yet do not provide services directly to
the City. Patrol Specials are a private entity providing services for private clients.
The recommendation to discontinue Patrol Specials under the City Charter centers on
the overarching fact that Patrol Specials are a private entity. There are three other
critical areas contributing to this recommendation: cost to the City, lack of command and
control over the activities of the Patrol Specials, and liability. Given these factors,
PSSG recommends that Patrol Specials no longer fall under the City Charter, but rather
continue their business as private security guards. PSSG understands that changing
the City Charter is a lengthy process; therefore, interim steps are required and
explained in the recommendations.

Me th o d o lo g y
This section outlines the study approach utilized by PSSG for primary and secondary
data collection and compilation of findings. This section describes the scope, key
evaluation questions, and data gathering for purposes of the study.
Scope of the Study

PSSG conducted the assessment under a contract with the City Controller’s Office, the
Police Commission, and the SFPD. PSSG meetings with Patrol Specials, Assistant
Patrol Specials, clients of the Patrol Specials, community groups, associations, the
SFPD Police Officers Association (POA), the SFPD, Board of Supervisors (BOS), Police
Commission, and the City Attorney’s Office, along with research on other community
practices, informed the recommendations.
The purpose of the study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Patrol
Specials program, including the organizational design, capacity, authority, capabilities
and culture. The study achieves the following: documents the history of Patrol Specials;
provides best practices and comparative practices in special police officer utilization and
deployment in other police agencies; evaluates the effectiveness of the current rules
and procedures: and recommends organizational and programmatic improvement,
including defining the appropriate role and authority of Patrol Specials.
Key Evaluation Questions

• What are the best and comparative practices with special police officer utilization
and deployment in other police agencies?
• What are the current roles and authority of Patrol Specials and their Assistants?
• How does the current role of Patrol Specials fit with the mission, vision, and
values of the SFPD?
• How does the current role of Patrol Specials fit with the needs of community
stakeholders?
• What is the process for becoming a Patrol Special or Assistant in terms of

background checks and training?
• Is the current process of oversight, supervision, and program administration

effective?
• How are the uniforms and equipment regulated?

Information Gathering
The first step in the study was to gather information through secondary and primary
sources on Patrol Specials and any similar type of organizations in other jurisdictions.
The list below contains documents collected and/or reviewed during the course of the
study specific to Patrol Specials. The list of materials is representative and not inclusive
of all materials examined by the PSSG team. In addition to the list below, PSSG
reviewed SFPD files on each of the Patrol Specials, along with documents on Patrol
Specials operations, beat sales, and lawsuits filed. When possible, dates appear;
however, many documents reviewed by PSSG were undated. In addition to the
documents listed, PSSG also reviewed countless newspaper articles, documents from
other states, and private agency websites during the course of the information-gathering
phase.
Interviews and Observations
The PSSG team conducted interviews with Patrol Specials, clients of Patrol Specials,
members of the Police Commission, Board of Supervisors, SFPD, and SFPD Police
Officers Association.
Patrol Specials Meetings and Interviews
At the onset of the study, PSSG invited all current Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol
Specials to an informational meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce
PSSG team members, discuss the scope of the project, and answer questions
regarding the study.
Client Interviews
Through the limited client lists provided by Patrol Specials to the Police Commission,
and through information obtained directly by PSSG, team members conducted
interviews with clients of the Patrol Specials. In several cases, a single representative of
a management agency spoke on behalf of several clients. The purpose of the
interviews was to determine the scope of services provided, the reason the client chose
the Patrol Specials, and the cost of services.
Police Commission and Board of Supervisors Interviews
Interviews with members of the Police Commission and Board of Supervisors enabled
PSSG to assess the impression that government leaders have regarding the activities of
Patrol Specials. Each interview with the elected officials occurred privately between
PSSG staff and individual members of the Police Commission and Board of
Supervisors.

San Francisco Police Department and Police Officer Association Interviews
PSSG interviewed representative SFPD personnel from the District Stations, Patrol, and
Administration. In addition, PSSG conducted interviews with members of the SFPD
Police Officers Association (POA). Meetings topics included the history of the Patrol
Specials, their policies and procedures, operations of the Patrol Specials, and the
impact of Patrol Specials on policing in the City.
PSSG Observations of Patrol Special Activities
In addition to the interviews and review of documentation, PSSG observed Patrol

Specials while on duty. PSSG informed the Patrol Specials that as time permitted,
PSSG staff would visit areas known to have Patrol Specials coverage. In addition,
PSSG photographed several locations of Patrol Specials accounts as a means to
document the types of locations at which Patrol Specials have clients.
Summary
The study approach ensured review of all information available and provided interviews
to individuals either actively involved with the Patrol Specials, tasked with administration
of the Patrol Specials program, or in a position to shape the future operations and
regulations of the Patrol Specials.
The research conducted during the study revealed a variety of perceptions and opinions
locally regarding Patrol Specials. On a national level, Patrol Specials are unique, as the
study did not reveal a program identical to the San Francisco Patrol Specials. However,
there are significant similarities between the Patrol Specials and other private security
and police organizations across the country.
The study revealed strong support of Patrol Specials by their clients, who perceive a
gap between the operation of the Patrol Specials and services provided by public
policing operations. While Patrol Specials are popular with the community, research
revealed that the Patrol Specials routinely ignored the rules set by the Police
Commission, including failure to wear the proper uniform, failure to provide client lists,
and failure to maintain proper certifications. The outcomes of the research, meetings,
and interviews appear in the findings and recommendations sections of the report.
The next section provides details on the Patrol Specials.

Ab o u t th e S a n Fra n c is c o P a tro l Sp e c ia ls
This section provides details of the evolution of Patrol Specials in the City, as well as
information on the organization of Patrol Specials, authority, training, appointment
process, equipment, and services offered. Also contained in this section is a review of
historical changes and opinions rendered related to Patrol Specials.
History of the Patrol Specials
Patrol Specials date back to the Gold Rush era of the 1840s -1850s. The organization
of Patrol Specials was to provide protection for merchants and citizens during a time
when the City was experiencing tremendous growth and significant crime.
In 1935, the City incorporated Patrol Specials into the City Charter. The City Charter
defines Patrol Specials as “private”; however, the Police Commission is the oversight
body for Patrol Specials. As part of their oversight responsibilities, the Police
Commission approves new Patrol Specials, develops and implements rules, and
imposes discipline on the Patrol Specials.
Patrol Specials Beats and Staffing
At some point prior to 1982, the City was divided into 64 “beats”8. The Patrol Specials
then purchased the beats. That system continues today. Once Patrol Specials own a
beat, they are the only individuals granted permission to work as a Patrol Special in that
specific area. If a Patrol Special believes he or she needs additional staffing, the Patrol
Special can identify a candidate to perform the duties of an Assistant Patrol Special.
Patrol Specials may also hire other Patrol Specials to work within their geographic
boundaries. The Police Commission approves the sale and transfer of beats; however,
the City does not derive any financial benefits from the sale of a beat. A minimum of
$500 is required to cover administrative cost of the sale of a beat.
According to records maintained by the SFPD Patrol Special Liaison Officer, there are
currently 13 Patrol Specials 9. The Patrol Specials own a combined 46 beats. Individual
Patrol Specials own from one to as many as seven beats. Seven inactive Patrol
Specials own a combined total of 16 - 22 beats10. Two beats appear on two separate
lists provided by the Patrol Specials. Of the 64 beats appearing on the list, it is not
documented which are active or inactive. Recordkeeping on the details of the beats is
8
There are 64 beats in the City. The map provided to PSSG displays a date of 1982; however it is
unknown when the actual beat lines were created. Current Patrol Specials did not provide, nor did
information provided to PSSG contain a date for the beat development.
9
Nine are active, four are inactive (yet employing assistant Patrol Specials )and the beat owned by Jane
Warner is being administered by an individual that is not a Patrol Special and an Assistant Patrol Special.
10
The numbers are inconsistent due to incomplete, missing or contradicting information provided by the
patrol specials

limited. The client lists provided by Patrol Specials lacked information regarding the
specific beat number.
There are currently 18active Assistant Patrol Specials and four inactive Assistant Patrol
Specials. The active Assistant Patrol Specials report working in 26 beats. Two of the
beats on which the Assistant Patrol Specials reported working do not appear on the list
of beats owned by Patrol Specials.
Application Process of the Patrol and Assistant Patrol Specials

To apply to become an Assistant Patrol Special, a current Patrol Special must sponsor
the applicant. The application process includes a written application, pre-employment
investigation by the Patrol Special, a background check by the SFPD, urinalysis testing,
fingerprint check, and a physical exam. Once an applicant completes the process, the
SFPD Patrol Special Liaison provides the information on the candidate to the Chief of
Police. If approved by the Chief of Police, it is the role of the Police Commission to
approve and appoint the Patrol Special. A defined job description for Patrol Specials
does not exist. Essentially, if an application is complete and the applicant passes the
background check, the Chief appoints the individual as a Patrol Special.
Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials undergo annual firearms training, and
Assistant Patrol Specials are required to secure a “Guard Card” 11. Any additional
training and certifications are at the discretion of each individual Patrol Special.
Recently, the SFPD has provided additional training for the Patrol Specials in defensive
tactics. The Findings and Recommendations section explores this topic further.
Training Process of Patrol Specials

Patrol Specials hold a variety of training certifications; however, there is no Patrol
Special training per se. Unlike reserve or full-time police officer training, which follows a
prescribed course of training monitored by the California Police Officer Standards and
Training (POST), there is no such training for the Patrol Specials. Patrol Specials are
required to complete the PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course. The PC 832 course
contains two components, totaling a minimum of 64 hours of training. The Arrest
component is 40 hours and the Firearms component is 24 hours. The curriculum further
separates the two components into 14 individual sections covering a wide range of
topics such as leadership, ethics, criminal law, search and seizure, and other related
topics 12. The SFPD provides refresher training at the Academy at no cost to the Patrol
Specials. The SPFD also support annual firearms training for the Patrol Specials.
Patrol Specials cover the cost of ammunition, but not staff.
11
Guard Cards are issued by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, State Bureau of Security
and Investigative Services.
12
CA Post 832 course specifications.

Role of Patrol Specials
Patrol Specials are private individuals, operating private businesses. Patrol Specials
perform work only when hired by a private business or individual to provide security
services. The Patrol Specials and their clients 13 negotiate the terms of the contract and
clients pay the Patrol Specials directly. Based on interviews and written documentation,
it appears that Patrol Specials provide an array of services, including checking on
vacant commercial buildings, checking on private residences, checking in on shop
owners, and providing a physical presence at merchant establishments, warehouses,
and office buildings establishments.
Neither the City, nor SFPD, nor the Police Commission request or direct the patrol
services of the Patrol Specials.
Authority of the Patrol Specials

Patrol Specials operate with the same authority as private citizens. Neither the SFPD,
nor Charter, nor Commission grants Patrol Specials the authority to make arrests or
engage in the practices of other public duties such as writing traffic tickets. Moreover,
neither the City, nor SFPD, nor the Commission requests or directs the services of the
Patrol Specials.
Government, law enforcement, and legal authorities do not recognize Patrol Specials as
peace officers. California Penal Code 830, 830.1 and 830.2, which details to whom
peace officer status is granted, does not recognize Patrol Specials as police or peace
officers 14. The San Francisco Police Commission and the California Police Officer
Standards and Training (POST) concur with this position, and a San Francisco Superior
Court and Appeals Court affirmed the Commission’s authority to define the role and
authority of Patrol Specials. Furthermore, in a recent San Francisco Superior Court
ruling 15, the court dismissed the criminal case against a defendant who had been
arrested for posing as a Patrol Special. The court did not uphold the charge of
impersonating a police officer because the court does not recognize Patrol Specials as
“public officers”.
Patrol Special Uniforms
Patrol Special uniforms traditionally consisted of navy blue shirts and navy blue pants,
making them appear very similar to the uniform of an SFPD officer. As detailed in the
Overview of Rules and Procedures section of this report, there have been several
13
While approximately half of the Patrol Specials provided client lists, the Patrol Specials maintain their
client lists are private and refused to provide the information to the commission.
14
An individual not appointed as a Patrol Special acted as a Patrol Special by wearing the uniform and
working for clients. The individual was charged with impersonating a police officer. The court ruled that
Patrol Specials are not Police Officers – therefore the court dismissed the charge.
15
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, January 21, 2010, Transcript, Honorable Curtis
E.A. Karnow, Judge.

changes in the uniform to make them appear less like those of the SFPD. Through
accounts from the Patrol Specials, members of the SFPD, and PSSG observations, it is
evident that Patrol Specials have routinely ignored the uniform standards. The Interim
Rules adopted in 2009 dictated a uniform that consisted of navy blue shirts with light
blue epaulettes and navy blue pants with the ¼-inch light blue stripe on the outside
seams.
Patrol Specials wear a six-point silver star engraved with “San Francisco Patrol Special
Police” on the front. The patch worn by the Patrol Specials is similar to that worn by the
SFPD and clearly states “San Francisco Police”; however, it states “Patrol Special” in
smaller type at the top and is trimmed in silver rather than gold.
Im a g e 1: S a n Fra nc is c o P a tro l S p e c ia l (le ft) a n d S a n Fra n c is c o P o lic e (rig h t)

P a tc h e s
Equipment of the Patrol Specials
The following describes the type of equipment Patrol Specials may use during the
course of their work.
Firearms
The rules and regulations approved by the Police Commission permit a Patrol Special to
carry a firearm, although it is not a requirement. Should a Patrol Special choose to
carry a firearm, he or she may do so only while in uniform, while on duty, or traveling to
a duty assignment. Firearms must be visible and in an approved holster. Patrol
Specials carrying a firearm must complete annual firearms training and certification.
Vehicles
Patrol Specials may drive vehicles of their choice, provided the vehicles are properly
registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Patrol Specials may not
equip a vehicle with emergency signaling equipment, including forward facing red lights,
flashing red/blue warning lights, or sirens of any type. Patrol Specials can possess a
yellow warning light, but may use it only when they have brought the vehicle to a stop.

Patrol Specials are not afforded any specials privileges related to driving or traffic rules
and must obey all motor vehicle and parking laws.
Patrol Specials must carry auto liability insurance and provide the insurance certificate
to the SFPD. The SFPD maintains the right to inspect vehicles driven by the Patrol
Specials.
Estimated Annual Cost to Support Patrol Special Program

As part of the PSSG study, PSSG and SFPD staff evaluated the SFPD resources
expended on an annual basis that are directly attributed to support of the Patrol Special
Program. They estimated the annual cost at $303,838.00 (Three Hundred and Three
Thousand – Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight Dollars) which includes the Patrol Special
Liaison, range personnel, command staff, and other members of the SFPD who devote
time to support the Patrol Special Program. The table below shows the breakdown of
the estimate.
Ta b le 1: Es tim a te Co s t to S FP D fo r Op e ra tio n o f th e P a tro l S p e c ia l P ro gra m
Line Item Estimate

Administrator salary (Lieutenant) 1/2 time $72,124
Liaison annual salary (Sergeant) full time $126,282
Command Staff (Commander, Assistant Chief, Chief) 240 hours
minimum per year $36,000
MCD staff (Sergeant, Inspector, Lieutenant, Attorneys) 480 hours
minimum per year $34,800
Range personnel (3 Officers/1 Sergeant) 8 hours minimum per year $1,752
Academy (Captain, Officer, Sergeant) 24 hours minimum per year $5,480
Police Commission (Lieutenant) 120 hours minimum per year $12,000
Miscellaneous (Station personnel / legal) 240 hours minimum per
year $14,400
Office supplies (paper/envelopes, postage etc. $1,000
Total $303,838
The estimated cost is conservative based on the number of hours that SFPD staff
members spend working directly on the Patrol Special Program. This annual cost does
not include costs attributed to the City Attorney’s Office for preparation and defense of
suits and actions filed by the Patrol Specials, or costs incurred by other City agencies,
such as the Department of Emergency Management for dispatch services.

Complaint and Discipline Procedures
Unlike the process for complaints against SFPD officers overseen by the Office of
Citizens Complaints (OCC), complaints against Patrol Specials are directed to the
SFPD district station and processed by the SFPD. The Watch Commander or Captain
may take immediate action or may submit preliminary investigation information to the
SFPD Patrol Special Liaison. An administrative investigation follows. The SFPD Patrol
Special Liaison then forwards the administrative investigation results and
recommendations to the Assistant Chief of Field Operations. The Assistant Chief then
forwards the information for further investigation either to the Management Control
Division (MCD). MCD then forwards the sustained cases to the station for written
admonishment or to the Police Commission for disciplinary action.
The Chief of Police reviews complaints based on the investigations and then determines
if discipline is warranted. In addition to complaints from the public, an investigation may
be initiated by the SFPD based on behavior they observe.
Complaints against Patrol Specials
Between July 2006 and March 2010, the SFPD MCD investigated 40 complaints against
Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials. The 40 complaints contained 22 charges
of Conduct Unbecoming a Member, 15 for Neglect of Duty, five for Unwarranted Action,
one for Unnecessary Force, one for Harassing Comments to a Citizen, and one
Administrative Investigation. All of these cases required the involvement of SFPD
personnel at District, Management Control Division, and Administrative levels.
Lawsuits and Court Cases

PSSG reviewed 11 cases 16 filed by Patrol Specials in the San Francisco Superior Court,
Small Claims Court, or Unfair Practice Charges, as well as a criminal case filed against
a Patrol Special. The cases involved lawsuits by Patrol Specials against the City, the
Police Commission, and other Patrol Specials, in most cases claiming that the rules
governing Patrol Specials violated their rights. The cases date from 1994 to present and
many required the resources of the City Attorney’s office.
The majority of all the suits and actions brought against the City are the direct result of
the City having oversight responsibilities of the Patrol Specials. As a result, the City
becomes a party to the action and incurs all the costs associated with researching and
preparing a defense to the allegations. The cost associated with the litigation becomes
a burden to the taxpayers of the City. The cost estimate to support the Patrol Specials
16
Because there is not a master log of cases facilitating additional research, PSSG was able to access
and review only 11 cases. However, it is believe that there were additional cases filed.

discussed later in the report does not include these legal costs, which are likely
significant 17.
Summary
Patrol Specials have a long history of operation in the City. The City Charter includes
the Patrol Specials and grants them the ability to patrol streets and sidewalks, in
addition to business and residential buildings. While the Police Commission provides
oversight, they do not exercise control over day-to-day activities. The Patrol Specials
are a private entity, but receive significant financial support from the SFPD. The
services of the Patrols Specials do not directly benefit the City, as private clients hire
them and direct their activities while on “patrol”.
The next section provides an overview of the input gathered by PSSG from the
stakeholders of the Patrol Special Program.
17
PSSG did not request a specific cost of the court cases or other time the Office of the City Attorney
spends on Patrol Special-related issues due to the prohibitive time and cost that would have been
required for the research.

In p u t fro m Sta ke h o ld e rs o f th e P a tro l Sp e c ia l P ro g ra m

During the study, PSSG interviewed members of the Police Commission, Board of
Supervisors, Patrol Specials, SFPD, SFPD Police Officers Association (POA), clients of
the Patrol Specials, and community-based organizations that formally hired Patrol
Specials. The information gathered during the data collection phase of the study, along
with knowledge gained through the review of other ancillary policing strategies, shaped
the findings and recommendations.
Patrol Special Introductory Meeting

At this meeting, PSSG informed the Patrol Specials of each component of the study.
Further, PSSG conveyed its desire to conduct a survey of all current clients of the Patrol
Specials as a means to gather information in a uniformed and efficient fashion. To
facilitate the survey process, PSSG requested that each Patrol Special compile a
complete list of clients with contact information. PSSG created a form to facilitate the
information gathering, ensuring consistency of the data. The Patrol Specials attending
the meeting expressed concerns over the confidentiality of the lists and the possibility
that the SFPD POA would obtain copies of the list. PSSG requested the list on two
other occasions and met with limited cooperation. Although providing a list of clients is
a requirement imposed by the Police Commission, less than half of the Patrol Specials
complied with the regulation.
Many of the Patrol Specials attending the meeting were in uniform. PSSG observed
that the majority of the uniforms worn by the Patrol Specials did not comply with the
uniform regulations. When PSSG asked about the lack of compliance with the uniforms,
the Patrol Specials responded that they were not going to conform to the uniform
requirement.
Patrol Special Interviews

PSSG offered private interviews to each of the 29 Patrol Specials and assistant Patrol
Specials. Conducted at neutral off-site locations, the purpose of the interviews was to
collect individual comments, thoughts, concerns, and opinions of the Patrol Specials’
program and operation.
Nineteen Patrol Specials and assistants agreed to participate in the interview process.
During the interviews, the Patrol Specials raised several common concerns. Concerns
included the following:
• The SFPD private details known as 10B are in direct competition with the Patrol
Specials.
• The SFPD and Commission wanted to secure the Patrol Special client list to
allow the 10B program to secure the clients of the Patrol Specials.
• The lack of arrest powers hinders the duties of the Patrol Specials.

• The lack of Peace Officer status is a major concern that hinders the duties of the
Patrol Specials.
• The uniform changes imposed by the Police Commission give less of an
appearance that the Patrol Specials and SFPD are connected.
• Appearing less like an SFPD Officer poses a safety concern for the Patrol
Specials.
• Appearing less like an SFPD Officer poses a business concern for the Patrol
Specials, who indicated they would lose business if they did not look like an
SFPD Officer.
• The appearance of being an SFPD Officer garners more respect for the Patrol
Specials.18 .
• The majority of the Patrol Specials believe that the Police Commission is the
proper oversight body.
• The Patrols Specials expressed concern that the SFPD influenced the Police
Commission’s decisions on rules, procedures, operations, and discipline.
• The Patrols Specials do not believe the SFPD should provide oversight, fearing a
conflict between the Patrol Specials and 10B.
Client Interviews
Through the interview process, PSSG spoke with representatives of more than 45
clients of the Patrol Specials. Here is a summary of those interviews:
• The majority of the clients are satisfied with the day-to-day services provided by
the Patrol Specials.
• Several clients reported dissatisfaction with the level of reporting and
accountability provided by the Patrol Specials.
• Clients hire the Patrol Specials for a variety of services, including vacant building
checks and “drive-by” patrols after hours, business security checks, alarm
response, private residence checks, walk-through of Single Room Occupancy
Hotels (SROs) and apartment buildings, and addressing of issues related to
unruly persons, mainly moving unwanted people along.
• Most clients expressed that the similarity in uniforms between the Patrol Specials
and SFPD was important, as the Patrol Specials appear to have a connection
with the SFPD, which gives them a higher level of credibility.
• Some clients thought that the Patrol Specials had arrest powers, while others did
not.
• Clients report that Patrol Specials cost less than other security companies and
can provide drive-by checks.
Patrol Specials did not uniformly comply with the request for client lists and contact
information. This precluded efforts to conduct a scientifically valid survey of the types of
services provided, types of accounts (e.g. business, residential, festivals), cost, and
18
Several Patrol Specials confirmed that members of the public often mistake them for SFPD Officers.

other measures to determine if the Patrols Specials services were integral to the safety
the City.
During the time of the PSSG study, the Patrol Specials privately contracted with an
individual 19 to conduct a survey of their clients. The survey was hand delivered 20 or
mailed to 146 clients, of which 63 (43%) responded. The report does not state the
basis for the selection of 146 clients or what percent of the total Patrol Specials clients
were surveyed. While the survey contained questions on the type of business
responding, this information did not appear in the report issued by the consultant hired
by the Patrol Specials. The report, while lacking details on the methodology and
representing a small sample size, states that clients are satisfied with the Patrol
Specials, with 9 out of 10 being the median ranking.
SFPD and Government Interviews

PSSG interviewed members of the SFPD, Board of Supervisors, and the Police
Commission. The results of the interviews showed a mixed level of understanding of
the Patrol Specials. While some individuals support the Patrol Specials, others are wary
of their role and levels of accountability. Common themes included concern over
liability, a commitment to ensuring the program runs in accordance with the best interest
of the city, and the acknowledgement of the desire of individual community members
and businesses to increase safety and security in their areas.
Specific concerns of the SFPD included reporting protocols; command/direction and

control over Patrol Specials; allowable actions; use of the police radio; uniforms (giving
the impression of SFPD); lack of adherence to rules and procedures; improper actions
of the Patrol Specials (arrests, use of the term “police”, lack of proper uniform, obtaining
“hot sheets”21); and access to police facilities.
PSSG Findings on Patrol Specials

PSSG devoted a significant amount of time determining the types of locations at which
Patrol Specials have accounts, observing the actions of the Patrol Specials, and
assessing the operations of the Patrol Specials through primary and secondary
research. In addition to randomly conducted observations, PSSG arranged to meet with
several Patrol Specials while they were working their beats.
19
The survey contains the names of Prof. Edward Peter Stringham, Ph.D.
and Shelby Cullom Davis, Associate Professor of American Business and Economic Enterprise, Trinity
College. In December 2009 the Independent Institue publish a Working Paper by Stringham and Cullom
Davis.
20
The report does not state who delivered the surveys.
21
Hot sheets are informational bulletins created and used by the SFPD to communicate information on
activities and wanted individuals.

The observations served to validate information gathered during the study. Through the
direct observations and review of SFPD, Police Commission and documentation
provided by the Patrol Specials, PSSG determined the following:
Uniforms and Equipment
• Patrol Specials routinely ignored the uniform rules set forth by the Police
Commission. In the first few months after the adoption of the Interim Rules,
PSSG observed Patrol Specials wearing a uniform similar to the SFPD and
failing to display the epaulets or stripe set forth as a requirement in the Interim
Rules. Midway through 2009, the SFPD instituted a sign-in log with a column for
uniform review. As PSSG reviewed the daily logs maintained by the district
captains, the Patrol Specials began to comply with the uniform rules. However,
often the uniform section of the log was not checked off, so the actual
compliance rate is unknown. In the case of one Patrol Special, it appears the
individual arrived at the district station improperly outfitted on most occasions.
While the adherence to the Interim Rules increased, historically, the Patrol
Specials failed to comply with the light blue shirt requirement in the previous
rules.
• Despite the epaulets and stripe, the uniform, right down to the “star” and patch, is
nearly identical to that of the SFPD.
Required Paperwork
• Paperwork requirements established by the Police Commission – such as the

submission of complete applications for Assistants, insurance coverage, monthly
status reports, and clients list – were often ignored or incomplete.
Hours
• At least four of the Patrol Specials reported working in excess of 95 hours a

week. The Patrol Specials are not required to log hours, submit time sheets, or
otherwise account for their time. Outside of anecdotal information, gaining an
accurate assessment of the time Patrol Specials spend on patrol is impossible at
this time. While not police officers, Patrol Specials are subject to the same level
of fatigue as police officers. Studies completed by the National Institute of Justice
and documented in Tired Cops, a research article by Bryan Vila, document the
issues related to police officer fatigue. In general, fatigue impacts officers in the
following ways:
o Impairs an officer's mental and physical ability.

o Creates a negative feedback loop or cycle of fatigue.
o Limits job performance.
o Damages an officer's health.

Documentation of Activities
During the study, PSSG requested documentation of the activities of the Patrol
Specials. None of the Patrol Specials provided information that could provide insight
into services conducted for clients. Some Patrol Specials presented binders of various
newspaper articles, commendations, training certificates, and promotional brochures,
but not patrol or security-related material. Individual clients mentioned that Patrol
Specials filled out information sheets at their businesses noting the time of the patrol at
a specific location.
The promotional brochures developed by the Patrol Specials did not appear to have the
required authorization by the SFPD, as they were lacking the disclaimer as required in
the Patrol Special rules and procedures. Additional material such as handouts, flyers,
and information on community events contained instructions to call the Patrol Specials
directly if the establishment required assistance. One flyer advertised a program in
which Patrol Specials would provide merchants with radios (for a fee), enabling the
businesses to contact the Patrol Special rather than calling the police. This Patrol
Special was promoting this program during Halloween, which is one of the most active
community events in the City.
When PSSG interviewed Patrol Specials and clients, both maintained that the activities
of the Patrol Specials reduced crime. While PSSG agrees that Patrol Specials may
provide visual reassurance to businesses and community members, there is no
documentation supporting the claim that Patrol Specials reduce or have any
measurable impact on crime. To support this claim would require a complete tracking of
hours worked by location, along with activities conducted by the Patrol Specials,
compared to calls for service and reported crime.
Training
The Police Commission rules and procedures for becoming a Patrol Special require the
completion of PC 832 Arrest and Firearms through the California Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST). This course consists of a total of 64 hours.
Some Patrol Specials obtained additional training through POST by completing the
reserve police officer training program. In addition, Patrol Specials must participate in
24 hours of annual training.
The Patrol Specials pay an outside vendor for their CPR training (for the last session it
was $50 per person), and 16 hours of the training is provided free of charge by the
SFPD. Each April and October, the Patrol Specials attend firearms training. While they
pay for their ammunition ($20), they do not reimburse the SFPD for the time of the
training personnel. The SFPD also provides some training in areas such as defensive
tactics.

When promoting their services to potential clients, Patrol Specials advertise, “Patrol
Officers are trained at the San Francisco Police Academy, or the equivalent thereof, and
have fulfilled requirements of the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards
and Training”. This advertising is misleading, as the POST does not require or regulate
the training of Patrol Specials.
Activities and Operation
Through direct observation, review of written and video material, and interviews with
Patrol Specials and SFPD, it is evident that the Patrol Specials routinely operate outside
the rules and procedures. Through the review of written reports by the Patrol Specials,
PSSG found that Patrol Specials are making arrests beyond the limitations of their
roles. Under Police Commission rules, Patrol Specials are able to make only a citizen’s
arrest; however, Patrol Specials write arrest reports on SFPD police paperwork. This is
a breach of conduct. In addition, Patrol Specials have identified themselves as
“Police” 22 when dealing with members of the community. Further, PSSG observed
Patrol Specials actively involved in police activities including responding to calls for
service. Patrol Specials are required to notify the SFPD if they or a member of the
community requires the assistance of a police officer; however, it appears the Patrol
Specials overstep their authority. There are reports at the SFPD filed by Patrol Specials
that show they were making arrests; the fact that they are filing police reports is in itself
a violation of rules and procedures.
The lack of adherence to clearly stated rules and procedures puts at risk not only the
community and SFPD, but also the Patrol Specials themselves. For example, in
February 2010, a Patrol Special had left the business of a client when he observed a
physical altercation. Instead of calling the SFPD for assistance – as required by rules
and procedures – the Patrol Special intervened, resulting in an injury to himself. The
rules and procedures clearly state that Patrol Specials are required to call the SFPD for
assistance prior to becoming involved in such an incident.
Patrol Specials use police radio frequencies to respond to calls. This practice creates
the perception of a direct connection to the police department. The Glen Park 23 safety
22
In February of 2007, a video clip of former Patrol Special Hanley Chan shows that he identified himself
as a police officer. In a “Judge Judy” appearance, he is introduced as “Officer” asked when asked by
Judge Judy – “You are a Police Officer in San Francisco?”, Mr. Chan responds, “Yes, working in the San
Francisco Patrol Special Police Division”. This video clip supports the assertion that Patrol Specials
misrepresent themselves as police officers. On April 16, 2008, Patrol Special Jane Warner discusses the
2005 SFCAN initiatives, stating that Patrol Specials provided a police escort to city workers. On
December 16, 2008, in a promotional video “SF Patrol Special Police”, Jane Warner answers her cell
phone stating, “Patrol Special Police” and later approaches a man sitting on the side walk and says,
“Police Officer. You’re gonna have to move out of here. It’s getting too crowded for you to be sitting on the
sidewalk.” She also states, “Hey guys, come here for a minute. I wanna talk to you. You are causing too
much trouble and so you are under arrest” and repeats “You’re under arrest”. In the clip, members of the
SFPD joined Ms. Warner on the scene.
23
Glen Park is a neighborhood in San Francisco that hires Patrol Specials at various business and
residential locations.

page, under its “frequently asked questions” section, states, “He 24reports in daily to our
Ingleside Police Station to review recent crime stats. He's on police bandwidth at all
times when patrolling our Village streets to enable more rapid response and prevent
problems, sometimes even before the SFPD can respond”. This raises the concern that
Patrol Specials are exceeding their authority of working for their private clients and are
assuming the role of police officers by responding to police calls for service. This
example illustrates the manner in which Patrol Specials use police resources to operate
their businesses. While this occurs frequently, the Glen Park webpage documents the
actions. Patrol Specials misrepresenting themselves as San Francisco police officers
raises serious potential issues of public safety and liability.” A more complicated
scenario includes a Patrol Special inadvertently becoming involved in an undercover or
surveillance based operation, thereby impeding the strategy of the SFPD.
Another public safety and liability concern of the operation is that Patrol Specials act
based on the requests of clients, not at the direction of the SFPD. For example, a press
release issued by the Patrol Specials on March 24, 2010 states, “Residents in the
vibrant, expanding redeveloped neighborhoods of South Beach, Rincon Hill, and
Mission Bay regularly approach the privately funded Patrol Special Police Officers Scott
and Todd Hart, brothers who patrol the area, and request assistance in removing a
homeless person who is blocking access to a residence or throwing garbage out of
cans”. The actions of the Patrol Special may or may not support the mission and intent
of the City and / or SFPD. This highlights the complication of any real or perceived
connection to the SFPD.
Patrol Specials conduct their patrols without notifying the SFPD of the location and
nature of their duties. Conversely, the Patrol Specials request and expect assistance
from the SFPD when needed. The lines of relationship between SFPD and this private
entity – the Patrol Specials – are blurred. It appears that Patrol Specials promote and
take advantage of their alignment to SFPD when it serves their purposes, but point to
the fact that they service private clients when they act independently or outside of police
regulations.
The SFPD does not enforce all violations of the Patrol Special rules and procedures.
Due to the time required for the complaint process, filing a complaint for every violation
would prevent the liaison from following through on most of them. The resources
allocated by the SFPD are significant, and further accountability and discipline would
require additional SFPD members be assigned to the Patrol Specials program to
manage the increased oversight.
Community Policing
Patrol Specials advertise that they are engaged in community policing and
neighborhood policing. Clients and advocates of Patrol Specials have expressed that
the SFPD/municipal police is not the proper entity to engage in Community Policing as
24
Glen Park references Patrol Special Calvin Wiley on their web page.

they believe they do not possess the correct training or resources to engage the
community. PSSG disagrees with both statements.
The following information appears verbatim from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Community Policing.
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational

strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-
solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that
give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of
crime.
Community Policing is comprised of three key components:
Community Partnerships
Collaborative partnerships between the law enforcement agency and the

individuals and organizations they serve to develop solutions to problems
and increase trust in police.
• Other Government Agencies

• Community Members/Groups
• Nonprofits/Service Providers
• Private Businesses
• Media
Organizational Transformation
The alignment of organizational management, structure, personnel, and

information systems to support community partnerships and proactive
problem solving.
Agency Management
• Climate and culture
• Leadership
• Labor relations
• Decision making
• Strategic planning
• Policies
• Organizational evaluations
• Transparency
• Organizational Structure
Geographic assignment of officers

• Despecialization
• Resources and finances
Personnel
• Recruitment, hiring, and selection
• Personnel supervision/evaluations
• Training
Information Systems (Technology)

• Communication/access to data
• Quality and accuracy of data
Problem Solving
The process of engaging in the proactive and systematic examination of

identified problems to develop and rigorously evaluate effective
responses.
• Scanning: Identifying and prioritizing problems

• Analysis: Researching what is known about the problem
• Response: Developing solutions to bring about lasting reductions in
the number and extent of problems
• Assessment: Evaluating the success of the responses
• Using the crime triangle to focus on immediate
conditions (victim/offender/location)
Although Patrol Specials work in the community, they do not meet the criteria of
community policing. The SFPD, conversely, is engaged in several aspects of
community policing 25. In 2007, the City invested significant resources in the Police
Effectiveness Review, components of which included review of community policing
efforts by the SFPD. In addition, the City’s Mayors Office of Criminal Justice completed
a Community Policing Advisory Committee Report, providing a review and
recommendations on the community policing strategy implemented by the SFPD.
Based on the lists provided by the Patrol Specials and the map provided by the City,
PSSG conducted site assessments on as many locations as possible. The Patrol
Special beats in the Castro and Glen Park neighborhoods are well known as the Patrol
Specials in those areas are visible. Despite recognition by many that these two areas
have active Patrol Specials, they do not represent the majority of the beats and clients
of the Patrol Specials. The majority of locations were industrial buildings, vacant
building, residential homes and shopping plazas. Following are representative examples
of client locations. The photographs list a type of location rather than an exact street
location to ensure the privacy of businesses and individuals.
25
The efforts of the SFPD with respect to Community Policing appear in the San Francisco Community
Policing – Report on Current Efforts issued by the Mayor’s Office – November 2006

P h o to g ra p h 1: Bu s ine s s Dis tric t P h o to g ra p h 2: Bu s in e s s Dis tric t
P h o to g ra p h 3: In d u s tria l S ite P h o to g ra p h 4: Re s ide n tia l S ite
P h o to g ra p h 5: Villa ge S ite P h o to g ra p h 6: Ne ig hb o rh o o d S ite

Oversight
While on the surface, it may appear logical that the Patrol Specials program would fall
under the authority of the Police Commission with oversight by the SFPD, it is an
improper alignment. If it is the desire of the City to regulate private security, it needs to
regulate that security on a consistent, uniform basis. Through oversight by and an
affiliation with the City, Patrol Specials hold an unfair advantage over private security
agencies. In addition, the oversight does not provide the ability of the SFPD to direct
the activities and operations of the Patrol Specials related to patrol. Patrol Specials work
at the times and locations request by their clients – which is not necessarily a direct
benefit to the City.
The hiring process of the Patrol Specials does not follow the same guidelines of City
employees 26. The authority to approve Patrol Specials is limited to individuals brought
forth by the Patrol Specials. The difference in hiring standards places a liability on the
City, as they do not recruit, interview, test, or otherwise hold the Patrol Specials to the
hiring standards. Yet, they are responsible for appointing them.
Cost of Services
The Patrol Specials would not disclose their actual salaries, hours worked for the salary
earned, or the services provided for the compensation. The actual cost of the services
of the Patrol Specials is unknown. The information provided by the Patrol Specials
shows a range of rates from a few dollars per building to $700.00 per month. Among
the Patrol Specials, the rates do not appear consistent for services by type, by client, or
by location. Supporters of Patrol Specials, specifically in Glen Park, advertise
subscription rates for Patrol Specials ranging from $25.00 to $200.00 per month, per
person or business. The City does not exercise any control over the rates charged, and
the Patrol Specials maintain that the rates charged, along with the list of clients, is
private. This stance supports and reinforces the fact that the Patrol Specials are a
private entity. Public police and public contracts are just that – public. The City
discloses the amounts paid to City employees and contractors, yet Patrol Specials
refuse to disclose this information in a consistent or complete manner.
Summary
The study reveals four key findings: that clients value the services of Patrol Specials;
that there is confusion over the role and authority of Patrol Specials; that Patrol Specials
in general ignore the rules and procedures created by the Police Commission; and that
the connection between Patrols Specials and the City creates both a financial burden
and a liability for the city.
The next section provides the study conclusions and recommendations for the future.
26
This statement is not to imply that Patrol Specials are City employees. They are not and the fact that
they do go through the City hiring process supports this determination.

Co n c lu s io n s a n d Re c o m m e n d a tio n s
This section provides conclusions and recommendations that reflect the information
gathered during the course of the PSSG study of Patrol Specials. The
recommendations incorporate strategies used in other municipalities and reflect what is
in the best interest of the City.
Conclusions
Patrol Specials and their activities are private in nature.
• Private policing focuses on customers and individuals, whereas municipal or

public police focus on the community at large. Patrol Specials contract directly
with clients, provide services dictated by clients, and are not under the direction
and control of the City while performing these private services.
Patrol Specials secure unique benefits not available to other security guards.
• Outside of the municipal police, Patrol Specials have the exclusive right to patrol
the street and sidewalks of the City.
• Private merchants and residents desiring this type of private security patrol have
no other options but Patrol Specials, limiting fair and open competition 27.
• Patrol Specials purchase their radios, but then use them to relay information to
Department of Emergency Management and the SFPD without compensating the
City for dispatching services.
• Patrol Specials can hear and transit sensitive and restricted radio traffic as they
operate on police channels 28.
• Patrol Specials receive annual training at the SFPD academy at a cost to the
City 29.
The Police Commission has legal oversight over the appointment of Patrol
Specials, but not the day-to-day operations.
• The Police Commission has legal oversight over the Patrols Specials, but lacks
the ability to direct and control their services, opening the City up to liability
issues.
27
While other security guard companies operate at locations in the City, only the Patrol Specials are
allowed to patrol the street and sidewalks.
28
There have been California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System
29
Examples of the training include an 8-hour First Aid/CPR class co-taught by an outside vendor. The course is
$700.00 per session. Fourteen of the Patrol Specials attended the first session and each person paid $50.00 to the
outside vendor. SFPD personnel conducted the remaining 16 hours at no charge. Another example is firearms
training, the Patrol Special pay $20.00 to the Range every April/October when they attempt re-qualification, however
the fee only cover ammunition, not staff.

• The Police Commission has assigned the SFPD to oversee the day-to-day
supervision of Patrol Specials.
• SFPD has assigned personnel at headquarters and the district stations as
liaisons to Patrol Specials, resulting in a quasi-chain of command, again raising
liability issues.
• The SFPD Patrol Specials Liaison collects required paperwork and maintains
files on the Patrol Specials, but cannot direct the activities of the Patrol Specials
when they are working for their clients.
Patrol Specials place a financial burden on the City.
• The conservative annual estimate of resources the SPFD and City spend on the
Patrol Specials is over $300,000 annually – excluding any resources expended
during litigation.
• The SFPD assigns a full-time police officer as a liaison to oversee the Patrol
Special program.
• City entities such as the Police Commission, Office of the City Attorney,
Controller’s Office, and the SFPD administration allocate extensive resources to
address issues related to the Patrol Specials, including lawsuits.
• Patrol Specials do not compensate the City for use of DEM dispatching services.
Patrol Specials routinely violate the rules and procedures.
• Patrol Specials announce themselves as “Police”.

• In almost every contact with the Patrol Specials, the PSSG team observed the
Patrol Specials lacked the proper uniform. The most common violations were the
lack of the light blue epaulette on the shirt and trousers.
• Patrol Specials failed to submit complete client lists and some turned in no list.
• Patrol Specials do not maintain monthly activity reports.
• PSSG observed Patrol Specials commit several violations of traffic and parking
laws.
• Patrol Specials respond to SFPD calls for service.
• Proof of vehicle and liability insurance were missing from several Patrol Special
files.
• Patrol Specials failed to have handouts/flyers/brochures approved by the SFPD
and the material lacks the disclaimer.
Patrol Specials are confused with SFPD.
• The lack of clear differentiation between Patrol Specials and municipal police
operating in the City results in confusion over their role and authority.
• The similar appearance of Patrol Specials to the SFPD causes confusion. Patrol
Specials wear a “star”, patch, and uniform nearly identical to that worn by the
SFPD.

• Patrol Specials and their clients maintain that the apparent connection to the
SFPD increases the credibility of the Patrol Specials, but it causes confusion in
the community.
There are multiple and significant issues regarding the role and authority surrounding
the Patrol Specials, including liability, oversight, authority, and misperceptions. The
most significant is that they are a private entity often representing themselves as and
receiving the benefits of public police officers.
Public police serve at the will of the municipality for the common good, welfare, and
safety of community members. Private policing targets private crime while responsible
only for the businesses and residents for whom they work.
The concept of private policing is not new. Allen Pinkerton established the first private
police organization, the Northwest Police Organization in 1855. By the 1900s, other
major private organizations, such as Burns and Wackenhut, emerged. In 1930, the Ford
Motor Company had a private police force of 3,500. These organizations operate at the
direction of private businesses and are not affiliated with municipal police organizations.
Private policing, then and now, fills the gap between public police resources and the
needs of private businesses and individuals. PSSG understands this need and supports
the ability and rights of businesses and individuals to supplement policing needs at
private locations. However, private policing services should not be connected to
municipal policing or municipal governments, unless very specific requirements are met.
If a public entity desires additional policing services that extend outside of the public
police, hiring and deployment should be under the direction and control of a city entity.
Much like the way a municipality hires for other services through a competitive bid
process, they should secure additional policing services in the same manner.
Recommendations
The following provides recommendations related to Patrol Specials and future ancillary
police services for the City and SFPD.
Patrol Specials
PSSG recommends that the City discontinue the Patrol Special program. Specifically,
the City should remove Patrol Specials from the City Charter and cease any connection
or affiliation between the City and the Patrol Specials.
Removal of the Patrol Specials from the City Charter does not limit the ability of the
Patrol Specials to continue to operate their businesses as private security guards.
Assistant Patrol Specials already meet the standards to obtain a “Guard Card”, which
licenses them to operate as security guards. Patrol Specials could obtain this license

and continue to provide services to their clients in their new, more appropriate role as
private security guards.
PSSG understands that the change in the City Charter could be lengthy. In the interim
PSSG recommends the City do the following:
• The Police Commission and SFPD should cease to approve any new
applications for Patrol Specials or Assistant Patrol Specials.
• The Police Commission should require Patrol Specials to obtain guard cards.
• The Police Commission should require a full accounting of the clients of the
Patrol Specials to include the location, schedule/dates of service, hours of the
service, and type of service provided. This will ensure knowledge of the
whereabouts of the Patrol Specials, enhancing their safety and reducing City
liability.
o Patrols Specials should submit this accounting immediately to the Police
Commission for filing by the SFPD Liaison.
o The Police Commission and SFPD should suspend any Patrol Special that
does not comply.
o Patrols Specials must immediately inform the district station to which they
report of any changes and follow up in writing to the SFPD Liaison.
o The SFPD should create a standard electronic form for Patrols Specials to
use to document their work details.
• The Police Commission should require Patrol Specials to wear a light blue shirt
as outlined in the original rules.
o Patrol Specials should not cover the light blue shirt with a jacket
resembling that worn by the SFPD.
o Pants worn by the Patrol Specials should display the light blue stripe as
set forth in the interim rules.
• The Police Commission should require Patrol Specials to wear only light blue
jackets.
• The Police Commission should change both the patch (change the color and
design) and star (change to a shield) of the Patrol Specials ensuring that it is
markedly different from the SPFD.
• The Police Commission should require Patrol Specials to mark their vehicles,
either permanently or with magnetic signs, with the words Patrol Special and
ensure there is not any reference to “police” or SFPD.
• The SFPD should prohibit Patrol Specials from using police radio frequencies.
o If Patrol Specials desire a dispatch service, they should create or hire their
own, as is the practice with other security agencies.
• The Police Commission, the SFPD, and the City should conduct a campaign to
inform the community that Patrol Specials are not City employees and provide a
description of services that Patrol Specials can perform.
• The Police Commission and the SFPD should eliminate any City-provided
training for Patrol Specials.

o If the SFPD provides training for a fee to other security guards, Patrol
Specials would be in the same category as security guards and could
participate for a fee.
• The Police Commission and SFPD should prohibit Patrol Specials from carrying
firearms.
o Once the Patrol Specials have adhered to security guard requirements,
they may obtain firearms for work use as permitted by the California Penal
Code.
• The Police Commission should enact specific penalties to addresses the lack of
adherence to any rule or requirement pertaining to the patrol specials.
o Penalties should be applied quickly after the observance or knowledge of
any infractions of rules.
• Any future program should eliminate patrol by private businesses on municipal
streets unless under contract or cooperative agreement with the City.
Future Ancillary Police Services
PSSG recommends that the City and SFPD explore other programs to supplement the
municipal law enforcement services.
Viable options for enhancing community safety include public–private partnerships for
policing, reserve officer programs, part-time police officer programs, volunteers in police
services 30, contracting with private security firms, and similar initiatives.
San Francisco already has a reserve program, and the use of the reserves by the SFPD
has increased since August 2009. PSSG suggests the City continue to increase its
reserve program. Los Angeles and New York are two large police departments that
have effectively used reserve police officers. The use of reserves is a positive step to
increase community involvement in public safety efforts. The City should also increase
programs similar to the Castro on Patrol31 to encourage community engagement on
public safety issues.
Reserve or volunteer programs have limitations. By the very nature of volunteering,

individuals have the option to participate. A part–time program could bridge the gaps
between the cost burden of full time officers and the need for additional police services.
Typically, part-time officers receive less pay and fewer benefits than full-time officers. In
addition, part time officers are not eligible for promotion. The stability of the pool of part-
time officers remaining on patrol allows a police administration to assign personnel to
the areas needed without concern that a promotion will require an assignment
elsewhere.
30
The national Volunteer in Police Services (VIPS) Program, establish under the Citizens Corp, provides
support and resources for agencies interested in developing or enhancing a volunteer program and for
citizens who wish to volunteer their time and skills with a community law enforcement agency.
31
Castro on Patrol is a community-based organization that acts as additional “eyes and ears” performing
voluntary citizen patrols. More information on Castro on Patrol appears in the appendix.

The use of civilians in police departments is widespread. From forensics, to crime
analysis, to crime scene investigation and community services, departments assign
civilians to tasks that do not require sworn personnel. The ability to reallocate sworn
personnel maximizes the resources of a department and is a proactive strategy for
increasing the number of officers on the street.
Contracting for additional services from security companies has its merits. The City
establishes the contract based on specific needs and sets the criteria with regard to
qualifications, dates, times, location and types of services. An example of how this type
of arrangement could benefit the City is special events. The City and/or SFPD could hire
additional personnel for a defined period with specific objectives such as staffing gates
at an event. The hired personnel, while working for a private company, would then be
under the direction and control of the City and/or SFPD. This differs from the current
Patrol Specials program as they contract with private clients and not the City and/or
SFPD. Utilization of this type of contracting may require negotiation with the SFPD
POA.
Summary
The topic of the role and activities of the Patrol Specials in the City is not a new one.
Various newspaper articles, Police Commission meeting minutes, and cases filed in the
courts have documented the issues for several decades. Over the years, and
specifically since the adoption of the rules and procedures in the 1970s, the relationship
between the Patrol Specials and the City has deteriorated. Attempts to coordinate the
services of Patrol Specials to align with the needs of the City appear to have failed. At
this time, Patrol Specials put a financial burden on the City, yet do not provide services
directly to the City. Patrol Specials are a private entity providing services for private
clients and the City should treat them as such.
The recommendation to discontinue Patrol Specials under the City Charter centers on
the overarching fact that Patrol Specials are a private entity. There are three other
critical areas contributing to this recommendation: cost to the City, lack of command and
control over the activities of the Patrol Specials, and liability. Given these factors,
PSSG recommends that Patrol Specials no longer fall under the City Charter, but rather
continue their business as private security guards.
There are many opportunities for public–private partnerships related to police services
in San Francisco. To be successful, partnerships with private entities must be open to
all, and the activities must focus on the needs of the City as a whole and not just the
needs of the private entity. The structure and operations of the Patrol Specials do not
meet the public–private partnership standards and requirements. Despite the
recommendation to remove the Patrol Specials from the City Charter, PSSG recognizes
that the clients desire and appreciate the work of Patrol Specials. The recommendation
does not discredit the value clients hold for Patrol Specials; however, PSSG stands firm
that the Patrol Specials are operating as a private business that does not directly serve

the City and needs to operate outside the operation of the City, SFPD, and Police
Commission.

Atta c h m e n t A: Ab o u t th e City a n d Co u n ty o f S a n Fra n c is c o
The City and County of San Francisco (the City), incorporated on April 15th, 1850, is a
legal subdivision of the State of California. The City is the fourth largest city in the state
of California and geographically the smallest county in California. Occupying just 47
square miles, the City is located on a peninsula bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the
west, San Francisco Bay on the east, the entrance to the Bay and the Golden Gate
Bridge to the north and San Mateo County to the south. The City is very compact, and
its density creates a rich variety of experiences and encounters on every street.
The City is the only consolidated city and county in the State, exercising the
governmental powers of both a city and a county under California law. The City’s
governance structure, codified in the City Charter of 1996, is similar in form to the
federal government. The Mayor’s Office comprises the executive branch of local
government. The Board of Supervisors acts as the legislative branch and the Superior
Court is the judicial arm of local government.
The United States Census Bureau reported a 2000 population of 815,358. San
Francisco is a racially and ethnically diverse city, with minority groups combining to
represent approximately 57% of the population, with no single majority group. Among
persons aged five and older, 46% speak a language other than English.
San Francisco is a city of neighborhoods, comprised of more than 40, each with its own
unique character and appeal. Neighborhoods host festivals, fairs, and other events
throughout the year. The neighborhoods, through their associations and groups, play an
integral part in governmental affairs. The City is cosmopolitan and affable, easily
traversed by foot or by bus, and offers an intriguing balance of urban architecture.
The City is the economic and cultural hub of the nine counties contiguous to the Bay
(Bay Area): Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. The economy of the Bay Area includes a wide range of
industries that supply local needs, as well as the needs of national and international
markets. In San Francisco, the top growth industries are business and professional
services, hospitality, digital media, and health.
There are more than 60,000 businesses located within the City. Ninety-five percent of
all businesses in San Francisco have 50 employees or fewer. In total, one out of every
four jobs in the Bay Area is in San Francisco. The City has a resident workforce of
433,000. An additional 590,500 workers commute into the City each day, bringing the
City’s total daily workforce to more than one million.
The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located 15 miles south of the City and
County in the unincorporated County of San Mateo. The SFO is one of the 30 busiest
airports in the world.
Public Safety Strategies A1

According to The City’s Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, 15.7 million people visited San
Francisco in 2005 and spent approximately $7.37 billion. In addition to the cultural and
historic attractions, the City is home to two professional sports teams. The San
Francisco Giants play at AT&T Park, and the San Francisco 49ers play at Monster Park.
The San Francisco sports teams draw large crowds of both residents and visitors.
Public Safety Strategies A2

Atta c h m e n t B: Ma te ria l Re vie we d
PSSG reviewed the following during the course of the study.
Patrol Special-Provided Material
• Corbett Heights Neighbors meeting bulletin, with Patrol Special Jane Warner 32
listed as presenter, 4/2006
• Patrol Special solicitation for services letter - Noe Valley merchants, 11/2006
• Communication from merchants in Hayes Valley to Mayor Gavin Newsom
requesting more police service
• Patrol Special solicitation for services letter - Castro merchants, 10/2006
• Patrol Special History booklet
• Correspondence to SF Police Commission from Patrol Special Jane Warner
regarding Halloween activities
• Client lists
SFPD – Patrol Special Liaison
• List of Patrol Specials and assistants, 2/2/2009

• Patrol Special and assistants applications list, 2005-2007
• List of Patrol Specials beats and owners as of 4/2009 and 2/2010
• Patrol Specials beat maps
• Daily reporting logs for Patrol Specials, 2/2009 – 1/2010
• SFPD Incident Reports submitted by Patrol Specials
• Commission meeting minutes of Patrol Special Jane Warner’s presentation of
history and currents affairs of the Patrol Specials program, 3/22/2006
• Request from Patrol Specials to revise rules, 1996
• Patrol Specials files maintained by SFPD
• District Captains’ Complimentary Reports on Patrol Specials
SFPD Administrative Memos and Reports
• Letter from SFPD Management Control Division to Mission Captain, requesting

an investigation of a citizen complaint against a Patrol Special, 8/2006
• Memo to Deputy Chief Shinn from Lt. Lazar regarding Patrol Specials proposed
Rules and Procedures changes, 3/2006
• Report to Police Commission President Pat Norman from Commissioner Sidney
Chan re: proposed Patrol Specials rule changes, 1997
• Memos and letters regarding Patrol Specials proposal for Rules and Procedures
changes, 2006
32
Jane Warner is mentioned in this report on several occasions as she was and active and vocal Patrol
Special and was the President of the Patrol Special Association. PSSG would like to acknowledge the
death of Ms. Warner on May 8, 2010 following a lengthy illness.
Public Safety Strategies B1

Charter Amendments
• Charter amendments 2003/ 2004

• Amendment to Charter Sec: 4.127 Police Department, Nov 2003 - Mar 2004
Patrol Special Rules and Procedures
• Patrol Special Rules and Procedures, effective 10/1/1970

• Patrol Special Rules and Procedures, amended 11/30/1994
• Patrol Special Rules and Procedures, amended 7/15/1998
• Patrol Special Rules and Procedures, effective 11/10/1999
• Memo, adoption of new Patrol Special Rules and Procedures, 12/10/2008
Court Documents
• San Francisco Superior Court case, 954102, Patrol Special vs. City and County
of San Francisco
• District Three Appellate Court case, 965565, Robert Hart vs. City and County of
San Francisco
• California Superior Court case 2302284 State vs. Willie Adams, preliminary
hearing, 1/19/ 2010
Bureau of Security and Investigative Services Documents
• Letter from the Department of Consumer Affairs, State Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services, giving opinion of state laws and regulations that apply to
Patrol Specials, 10/22/1997
• California Department of Consumer Affairs, State Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services (publicly posted agency information)
California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
• Letter from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) to Chief Fred Lau, detailing requirements to use Patrol Specials as
Reserve Police Officers
• CA POST review of options for Commission’s Recognition of San Francisco
Patrol Special Officers, 10/2/1986
• CA POST requirements for Reserve Police Officers
• CA POST Administrative Manual, Chapter 7, Certificate
California Codes
• San Francisco Police Code, Section 1750, Article 25, Regulations for Private
Protection and Security Services
• California Penal Code
Public Safety Strategies B2

Atta c h m e n t C: P a tro l S p e c ia l Co u rt Ca s e s
PSSG reviewed 11 cases 33 filed by Patrol Specials in the San Francisco Superior Court,
Small Claims Court, or Unfair Practice Charges, as well as a criminal case filed against
a Patrol Special. The cases involved lawsuits by Patrol Specials against the City, the
Police Commission, and other Patrol Specials. The cases date from 1994 to present
and many required the resources of the City Attorney’s office. The cases reviewed
include:
• Barry, John v. SF Patrol Special, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 468-
301; Serge White (Patrol Special Officer is a named defendant); suit alleging lost
wages/hours
• Hart, Robert, et al. v. SF Police Commission, San Francisco Superior Court Case
No. 965-565; Writ of Mandate; named petitioners/Patrol Special Officers include
John Andrews, Anthony Cirimele, Sam Reyes, Albert Taylor, Theodore Torres,
Serge White and Calvin Wiley
• Hart, Robert, et al. v. CCSF, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 968-357;
Writ of Mandate; named petitioners/Patrol Special Officers include John
Andrews, Anthony Cirimele, Sam Reyes, Albert Taylor, Theodore Torres, Serge
White and Calvin Wiley
• Burns, Robert v. CCSF, Small Claims Case No. 746425; defamation case
• Burns, Robert v. Wiley, Calvin, Small Claims Case No. 759283
• Byard, Alan v. Fiscal, Paula, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 505-
960; Writ of Mandate re Prop. H (Gun Control)
• SF Patrol Special v. CCSF, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 954-102;
Writ of Mandate; Patrol Special Officer Sam Reyes is named in the lawsuit
• Warner, Jane v. CCSF, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 494-917;
• Wiley, Calvin v. CCSF, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 946-070; Writ of
Mandate Case
• Morales v. Wiley, Calvin, San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 454-396; traffic
collision case
• California Superior Court case 2302284 State vs. Willie Adams, preliminary
hearing, 1/19/2010
33
While PSSG reviewed 11 cases, likely there were other cases filed; however, there is not a master log
of cases.
Public Safety Strategies C1

Atta c h m e n t D: Ove rvie w a n d His to ry o f Ru le s a n d P ro c e d u re s a n d S ig n ific a n t
Le g a l Ac tio n fo r P a tro l S p e c ia ls a n d As s is ta n ts
The following provides a timetable of the rules and procedures governing Patrol
Specials, along with a review of recent significant changes to the rules and procedures
related to the operation of Patrol Specials.
Rule Changes and Outcomes
In September 1970, the San Francisco Police Commission adopted Rules and
Procedures to govern Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials. The Commission
based the rules for Patrol Specials on the rules in place for regular full-time sworn SFPD
members.
The 1970 rules gave Patrol Specials authority to issue citations and make arrests, but
did not define Patrol Specials as peace officers. The 1970 rules caused many disputes
between the City and Patrol Specials over the ensuing years; the report cites several
instances of lawsuits filed by Patrol Specials against the City.
In 1986, the City Attorney threatened suit against the California Commission on Police
Officer Standards and Training (POST), seeking that POST provide full peace officer
training to the Patrol Specials. POST affirmed its position that Patrol Specials are not
peace officers. Discussion on this ruling appears later in this section.
In 1993, the Patrol Special Police Officers Association sued the City, alleging that the
Police Commission was violating their rights by allowing private security and detail
(10B) SFPD officers to compete with them.
In November 1994, the Police Commission modified the rules and procedures. These
changes aligned the operations of Patrol Specials with private security guards rather
than peace officers. The new rules stated that Patrol Specials were not city employees,
limited their authority to carry weapons to their time on duty, took away Patrol Specials’
authority to make arrests (except as any citizen can), and required Patrol Specials to
carry their own liability and workers compensation insurance.
In response to the 1994 changes, the Patrol Specials filed a lawsuit alleging that the
Police Commission did not have the authority to make the changes. The Superior Court
and the Appeals Court upheld the changes.34 The Appeals Court stated that the Police
Commission, under the City Charter, has the authority to promulgate general rules
regulating the qualifications of the Patrol Specials.
In 1998, the Police Commission again revised the rules. In these changes, the
Commission established the SFPD Patrol Special Liaison Officer and District Stations
Public Safety Strategies D1

Liaisons. The changes required that Patrol Specials sign in and out of the district
stations, changed the uniform shirt color to light blue, established discipline and
complaint procedures35, and clarified range qualification requirements.
In response to the 1998 changes, the Patrol Specials again filed suit in federal court 36,
alleging the rule changes violated anti-trust and civil rights laws. The Federal District
Court dismissed the case and the Patrol Specials appealed the ruling. The appeals
court also ruled for the City.
In 1999, the Police Commission made one change to the rules by adding a section that
requires Patrol Specials and assistants involved in a vehicle accident while on duty to
remain at the accident scene and notify the on duty SFPD district commander.
In December 2008, the Police Commission adopted Interim Rules and Procedures for
Patrol Specials and Assistants. In these rules, there was a change in the uniform
requiring light blue epaulettes on both shoulders of shirts and jackets and a one-half
inch light blue stripe on the outside seams of the trousers.
Landmark Decisions Related to Patrol Specials
CA POST 1986 Review of Status of San Francisco Patrol Special Officers.
In March 1986, San Francisco City Attorney George Agnost sent a letter to the Police
Officer Standards and Training (POST) Executive Director Norm Boehm informing the
director that it was the City Attorney’s opinion that the Patrol Specials were SFPD
officers and peace officers within the meaning of Section 830.1 of the Penal Code. The
City Attorney went on to inform POST that if they did not train the Patrol Specials as
peace officers, the City would file a lawsuit against POST.
In response to the City Attorney’s letter, the POST commission heard testimony at their
April meeting and ordered that POST staff prepare a report on the issue and report back
to the POST commission. POST staff completed a report and presented the findings to
the POST commission at their July meeting. As there was additional testimony at the
July meeting, the commission scheduled the issue for discussion at their October
meeting.
At the both the April and July meetings, testimony supporting the request was heard
from the City Attorney’s office. A representative of SFPD, speaking for Chief Frank
Jordan, opposed the City Attorney’s position and supported the Patrol Specials’
classification as Reserve Police Officers. 37 The attorney for the Patrol Specials also
testified at the meetings.
s Complaints.
Circuit Court No. CV98-02461, Appeals Court No. 99-17192
37
Reserve Officers attend the police academy and work at varying levels within police departments. At
the SFPD, Reserve Officers are unpaid.

At the October meeting, the POST commission agreed with the recommendation of the
POST staff report and declined the request of the City Attorney. The recommendation
was, “Decline to recognize the Patrol Special Officer as a peace officer defined in Penal
Code Section 830.1. Because the Commission has no basis to define the status of this
position, clarification of their status rests with the City and County of San Francisco or
legislative/legal action.”
The conclusions section of the POST staff report stated that Patrol Specials are defined
differently than SFPD officers in the charter and state law. Further, the report states that
the requirements and operations of the Patrol Specials differed from SFPD officers in
rules, policies, procedures, and day-to-day activities.
Summary
The evolution of rules and procedures attempting to define and clarify the roles of Patrol
Specials clearly indicates confusion and lack of clarity in the program. The changes in
the rules and procedures have defined Patrol Specials as separate and distinct from the
SFPD in that the SFPD are peace officers and Patrol Specials are not. In addition,
California Penal Code Section 830.1 does not recognize Patrol Specials as peace
officers. The rules and procedures also limit the activity of Patrol Specials with respect
to powers of arrest; Patrol Specials have no arrest authority beyond any citizen. Both a
Superior and Appeals Court affirmed the Police Commission’s authority to define the
role and authority of the Patrol Specials.

Atta c h m e n t E: Co m p a ra tive S tra te g ie s fo r An c illa ry P o lic e S e rvic e s
Communities across the country operate police departments with fewer resources than
optimal to meet needs. As community members demand higher levels of police services
than can be met with existing resources, communities are developing strategies to
increase the perception of safety for community members and mitigate losses to
businesses.
PSSG completed extensive research to find ancillary police services comparable with
the San Francisco Patrol Specials. This section of the report describes various private
policing agencies/businesses and reserve police initiatives from across the country.
Based on PSSG research, there does not appear to be an ancillary police service in
direct comparison to the governance structure of the San Francisco Patrol Specials.
However, there are programs that may benefit the city.
Private Policing
Private policing agencies share the common mission of contracting with private citizens
and businesses, and in some instances government entities, to protect persons and
property within a defined area. These agencies, regulated by local, county or state laws
and regulations, have varying degrees of law enforcement powers and training.
Viewing the present structure and initiatives of the San Francisco Patrol Specials in
comparison to other private policing agencies provides insight into the laws, regulations,
oversight, operations, resources, and strategies used by other private policing agencies
to achieve their very similar missions. The review of the practices and strategies of
these agencies provides the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco
Police Commission with useful information in determining operational and regulatory
decisions regarding Patrol Specials.
The table, Comparison of Representative Private Police Organizations, on the next

page provides a comparative view of three private agencies in addition to the Patrol
Specials. The other agencies included are:
• North Carolina Company Police Program

• Cincinnati, Ohio Private Police Officers
• Portland, Oregon Portland Patrol Inc.
The three agencies included in the table, in addition to San Francisco Patrol Specials,
are representative of private organizations providing security and/or policing services.
Following the table is an overview of each of the private entities. Complete information
on the Patrol Specials appears in the “About the Patrol Specials” section of the main
report on page 9. The section on reserve police programs appears after the discussion
on private police strategies.
E1
Ta b le 2: Co m p a ris o n o f Re p re s e n ta tive P riva te P o lic e Org a n iza tio n s
38
Co m p a ris o n o f Re p re s e n ta tive P riva te P o lic e Org a n iza tio n s
San North Portland,
Francisco Carolina Cincinnati, Oregon
Patrol Company Ohio Private Portland
Agency Name Specials Police Police Patrol Inc.
State CA NC OH OR
Governing
Laws Yes Yes Yes Yes
Armed Yes Yes Yes Yes
Arrest Powers No Yes Limited No
Police Attorney Police Private
Oversight Commission General Department Business
Fees
Regulated No No No No
Required
39
Training Yes Yes Yes Yes
Entity
Regulating Police
Training Commission State City State
Police Radio
Frequency Yes Yes Yes No
Entity
Investigating
Citizen Attorney Private
Complaints Police General Police Business
Uniforms
Regulated Yes Yes Yes No
Indirectly –
Government Operational Indirectly -
40
Funding Support No No Contracts
41
Population 815,358 9,380,884 333,013 566,141
Size of Police
42 43
Department 1,971 1,813 1,057 704
Number of
Individuals
44 45
Participating 30 900+ 12 60
38
Information derived from secondary research and interviews by PSSG with agency representatives.
39
In San Francisco, the Patrol Specials receive subsided training, in the other locations, individuals or
their agencies pay for their own training.
40
Private agencies receive funding from sources such as the Community Development Block Grant and
Business Improvement Districts.
41
2009 U.S. Census Bureau Estimates.
42
This is the mandated number, recommended by the Controller’s Office to decrease to 1,666.
43
This figure is for the North Carolina State Police only as total number of officers in North Carolina was
unavailable.
44
This includes Patrol Special and their Assistants.
45
The are licensed security guards and most have law enforcement experience.
E2
North Carolina Company Police
Overview
The history of Company Police in North Carolina spans 120 years. Over the years, as
special policing issues arose which local law enforcement could not adequately handle,
the state enacted law to authorize the creation of special police. Examples of entities
seeking additional security services include railroads, power companies, schools,
construction companies, and other various types of businesses. The Governor
commissioned these special police under state laws until 1971, when that responsibility
for commissioning individuals moved to the Attorney General through a change in
statute. These special police, under the Company Police Act, became the Company
Police.
There are currently 78 Company Police agencies and more than 900 commissioned
Company Police officers in North Carolina. The agencies range in size from one officer
to 60 officers. The agencies and their officers, by law, may provide the same police
service within their territorial jurisdiction as do municipal law enforcement officers.
Company Police officers patrol and enforce criminal laws on private and public school
property, on trains, in train stations, hospitals, shopping centers, apartment complexes,
office buildings, and other private property. The Company Police contract with both
public and private entities.
Oversight
Chapter 74E, The Company Police Act of the North Carolina General Statutes gives the
Attorney General the authority to certify an agency as a Company Police Agency and to
commission individuals as Company Police officers. Commissioned police officers must
work for a certified agency. Chapter 12, Subchapter 2I of the North Carolina
Administrative Code also gives authority over the Company Police to the Attorney
General.
Under the general statutes and administrative code, the Attorney General has the power
to: 46
• Establish minimum education, experience, and training standards, and establish,

and require written or oral examinations for an applicant for certification as a
Company Police agency and applicant for commission as a Company Police
officer.
• Require a Company Police agency or a Company Police officer to submit reports
or other information.
• Inspect/audit records maintained by a Company Police agency.
46
North Carolina Attorney General’s 2009 Company Police Study Guide
E3
• Conduct investigations regarding alleged violations of the Act or an

administrative rule adopted under the authority of the Act and to make
evaluations as may be necessary to determine if a Company Police agency or a
Company Police officer is complying with the Act and the rules adopted pursuant
to the Act.
• Deny, suspend, or revoke a certification as a Company Police agency or a
commission as a Company Police officer for failure to meet the requirements of
or comply with the Act or an administrative rule under the authority of the Act.
• Appear in the name of the Company Police Program and apply to the courts
having jurisdiction for injunctions to prevent a violation of the Act or the rules
adopted under the authority of the Act.
• Delegate the authority to administer the Program.
• Require that the Criminal Justice Standards Division provide administrative
support staff for the Program.
• Adopt rules needed to implement the Act.
The Attorney General has appointed an Administrator for the Program, and promulgated
administrative rules to oversee the Company Police and enforce the laws and rules.
Appointment
An agency desiring to employ Company Police officers and contract with individuals and
business for policing services must first apply for and obtain appointment through the
Attorney General’s Office. There is an application fee of $250.00 and an annual renewal
fee of $200.00. The agency must designate a person – for example, a department
head/chief – to be in charge of the Company Police officers employed by the agency.
The designated individual must be a commissioned Company Police officer.
The commissioned agency then hires individuals as Company Police officers. The
Attorney General must then commission these employees as Company Police officers.
The application fee is $250.00 for an agency with a $200.00 per year renewal fee,
application fees for an officer is $100.00 with a renewal cost of $50.00. Commissioned
officers cannot transfer their commission from one police company agency to another.
Qualifications and Training
Prior to commission as a Company Police officer, candidates must meet minimum

requirements as promulgated by the Attorney General. These requirements include an
intensive background examination similar to that required for full-time law enforcement
officers and require that the applicant meet the minimum standards for criminal justice
officers established by the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training
Standards Commission. The certification program lasts for 26 weeks.
Company Police officers must meet and maintain the same minimum pre-employment
and in-service standards required of all State law enforcement officers by the North
Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. These
E4
standards include an extensive background investigation, educational requirements,

and completion of the Basic Law Enforcement Training program, as well as mandated
update training each year.
Authority
Company Police officers fall into three categories: Campus Police Officers, Railroad
Police Officers, and Special Police Officers. All three categories have the same law
enforcement powers as municipal police officers while on the property of their clients.
They also have authority off the property when in sight of and in fresh pursuit of a
suspect that has committed a crime on the property of their client. Campus and Railroad
Police Officers have added authority, beyond that of a Special Police Officer, specific to
the special nature of their jurisdictions. Company Police officers only have police
powers while on duty. When off duty, they can only act as a private citizen.
State statutes do not consider Company Police officers an “Officer of the State” for
purposes of charging an individual with Assault on an Officer of the State if an assault
occurs. The statues do allow for a charge of resisting arrest.
Company Police officers can operate vehicles with emergency lights and sirens while on
the property of their clients and while performing a law enforcement function. The
vehicles must clearly indicate that it is a Company Police vehicle. Company Police may
transport prisoners once arrested for appearance before a magistrate.
Company Police officers, once off the property of their clients, cannot exercise police
powers even if requested to do so by a municipal officer. Company Police can assist as
a private citizen.
Company Police Agencies enter into agreements with local police agencies enabling
them to use public radio frequencies. These local police assign specific radio
frequencies to the Company Police. Uniforms standards are set by each individual
agency.
Clients
Company Police agencies in North Carolina, after being commissioned by the Attorney
General, privately contract with public and private organizations to provide police
services on property owned or leased by the organization securing the services. The
agency sets its own rates for services, as there are no regulations governing rates and
fees.
Examples of clients include private and public institutions such as schools, hospitals,
railroads, parks, shopping centers, and apartment complexes.
E5
Cincinnati, Ohio Private Police
Overview
The history of private police in Cincinnati dates back to the early 1900s, when private
police agencies contracted with private citizens and private corporations to provide
ancillary police services. The number of private police has varied over the years, with
only a limited number still operating. Cincinnati Municipal Code 887.7, enacted in 1983,
legislated very specific guidelines and regulations pertaining to private police.
According to the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD), there are only two private police
companies currently operating in the City of Cincinnati. One company employs two
officers and the other employs 10 officers. The companies and their officers are armed
and have the powers of police officers in enforcing certain laws and ordinances. The
CPD Chief, under authority of Municipal Code 887 (Code 887), has limited these
powers.
Oversight
Cincinnati Municipal Code 887, Private Police Officers, provides for private police
officers to perform police duties for private persons and corporations at the expense of
the private entity. The CPD Chief is granted the authority to commission private police
agencies. In addition, the CPD Chief of Police commissions private police officers upon
the showing of a need for the services by the private entity. The Chief of Police must
commission the private police prior to performing any services.
Appointment
Private police officers must apply to the CPD Chief of Police for commission as a private
police officer. Code 887 and the Manual of Rules and Regulations (Manual) issued by
the CPD Chief provides for specific criteria for applicants. Commissions are valid for
one year with annual renewals. The application fee is $250.00 with annual renewal fees
of $120.00 for individual private police officers. Officers must work for an approved
private police agency. Officers moving from one private police agency to another must
pay a transfer fee of $75.00. Individual private police officers must also carry liability
insurance with $1,000,000 coverage. Private police agencies hiring private police
officers must be licensed by the City and are required to pay an application fee of
$500.00 and annual renewal fees ranging from $25.00 to $625.00, depending on the
number of officers employed. They are also required to maintain liability insurance of at
least $2,000,000.
Prior to commission as a private police officer, candidates must meet minimum

requirements under Code 887 and the CPD rules and regulations. These requirements
include educational requirements, an intensive background examination similar to that
Public Safety Strategies E6

required for full time law enforcement officers, and proof of the successful completion of
an Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission basic police academy consisting of 582
hours of instruction.
Individuals possessing a private police commission must comply with the following
provisions in order to have their commission renewed: 47
• Receive eight hours of annual in-service training at the Cincinnati Police

Academy. The training will consist of topics designated by Police Chief.
• Receive eight hours of firearms training yearly under the supervision of the CPD
Firearms Training Unit if they wish to carry a firearm on duty. At the end of this
training, the private police officer must pass the CPD pistol qualification course in
order to continue carrying a firearm. CPS regulates the type of firearm and
ammunition and the officers must provide their own ammunition.
• Reimburse CPD the sum of $75.00 per individual for the sixteen hours of yearly
training.
• Pay a yearly renewal fee of $120.00.
Authority
The Cincinnati Municipal Code, Sec. 887-11, Powers of Private Police Officers, gives
private police officers the same powers as CPD officers in arresting or citing persons for
offenses against the laws and ordinances. The Code also gives the CPD Chief the
authority to limit the powers to those that the Chief deems necessary to perform the
tasks of the commissioned individual. In the Manual of Rules and Regulations, the
powers of the private police officers are limited to issuing criminal minor misdemeanor
citations within the scope of their responsibility, on the premises of their employer and
while on duty.
The Manual also prohibits the private police from enforcing any traffic violation on any
property except in the case of an emergency. In the case of an emergency traffic stop,
immediate contact with CPD is required of the private police and the case turned over to
a CPD officer.
The Manual requires private police officers to wear different color uniforms than the
CPD officers. The Manual states they, “will not wear any police uniform parts, excluding
the leather duty belt, similar to those worn by officers of the Cincinnati Police
Department (CPD).” CPD officers wear white shirts and private police officers are
required to wear dark blue shirts.
The Manual authorizes private police officers to use the CPD radio system. To use the
system, officers must lease the required portable radio from CPD for its purchase price
47
Cincinnati Police Department, Private Police Commissions Manual of Rules and Regulations (Revised
5/30/06)

and are responsible for any damage or repair costs. They must complete training in
radio procedures.
Private Police Agency Clients
Private police agencies in Cincinnati, after commission by the CPD Chief of Police,
contract with private individuals and organizations to provide police services on property
owned or leased by the client. The agency sets its own rates for services, as there are
no regulations governing rates and fees.
Examples are private individuals, businesses such as shopping centers, apartment

complexes, department stores, and other businesses desiring ancillary police services.
The Manual prohibits private police officers from contracting with liquor establishments,
acting as “bouncers”, checking identifications, or entering the establishments except in
an emergency. When this occurs, the private police officer must notify a CPD
supervisor of the situation.
Portland Oregon, Portland Patrol Inc.
Overview
Portland Patrol Incorporated (PPI), established in 1997 by two Portland police

detectives, is a private armed and unarmed security service. When established, the
City was experiencing budget cutbacks that resulted in the Portland Police Bureau
(PPB) reassigning foot patrol officers from the downtown business area to other duties.
At the same time, the downtown businesses formed a Business Improvement District
(BID) funded through annual membership dues, special events, and sponsorships. The
BID hired PPI to provide armed security patrols in the business district. The BID falls
under the umbrella of the Portland Business Alliance (PBA), formerly the Chamber of
Commerce. 48
Initially all employees of the PPI were retired PPB officers. PPI currently hires only
former police officers with at least three years of experience as armed security officers.
Many of their employees are former PPB officers. 49
The PBA contracted with a private non-profit Portland Downtown Services Inc. (PDSI) to
provide “Clean and Safe” initiatives and other programs to downtown property owners.
As part of PDSI's commitment to promoting a clean and safe urban center, downtown
businesses fund the below listed services through the Portland Business Alliance: 50
• Private security patrols

• Portland Police bike patrol officers
• Crime-prevention services
48
Portland Patrol Inc. Interview by PSSG staff
49
Portland Patrol Inc. Interview by PSSG staff.
50
http://www.portlandalliance.com

• Sidewalk cleaning
• Graffiti removal
• Sidewalk Ambassadors
• Market research
• Downtown retail and marketing
Oversight
The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), by authority
of Oregon State Statute 181, Private Security, has licensing and regulatory control over
private security. The DPSST has developed professional standards for licensing,
qualifications, fees and training for private security. The DPSST also enforces these
requirements.
Private security companies such as PPI employ private security officers and oversee
the day-to-day supervision. PPI management handles personnel issues and complaints
made against employees of PPI.
Appointment
PPI hires DPSST licensed private security officers as civilian employees who work at
the will of the PPI.
The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) requires
certification for PPI, a private security company. There are two unique certifications for
armed and unarmed security officers. Armed security officers must attend a 12-hour
basic training and a 24-hour armed training module by a DPSST certified instructor.
Renewal requirements each year include a four-hour renewal module and armed
renewal-training components.51 Unarmed security officers are not required to take the
armed training. The DPSST also has age, educational, testing and background
requirements for issuance of a license. There are minimal fees for obtaining and
renewing the licenses.
Authority
Armed security officers in Oregon, including PPI officers, have no powers to serve
criminal process or make arrests under Oregon state statutes. They have the same
powers as any private citizen.
51
DPSST Private Security Officers Rules and Regulations

The PPI officers wear uniforms nearly identical to those worn by sworn officers of the
Portland Police Bureau. The uniform differences are that the PPI officers do not have a
stripe on the pant leg, the arm patch is different, and the badge is smaller.
PPI maintains its own radio communications system. Each PPI officer has a PPI radio
while on duty. The four PPB officers carry issued PPB radios as well as a PPI radio
while on duty. PPI officers will call the PPB officers when needing police assistance.
When the PPB officers assigned to the BID are not on duty, PPI will call PPI dispatch for
police assistance.
Clients
Private security companies in Oregon contract with individuals and organizations to

provide security services. The companies set their own rates for services, as there are
no regulations governing rates and fees.
PPI contracts with the BID to perform “order maintenance” in the parks, garages and
public areas of the BID. Order maintenance consists of handling quality of life issues
such as homeless sleeping in doorways, intoxicated, disorderly, and undesirable
persons on the property of their clients.
PPI, by contract, is required to provide a wake-up service in the business district each
morning. This service consists of PPI officers patrolling the sidewalks each morning
before the businesses open and waking the homeless that are sleeping in doorways
and on the private property of the BID members. Once completed, the PPI officer will
call a BID contracted cleaning company to clean the doorway area if needed. 52
The PPI officers also patrol the parks and garages in the BID and request unauthorized
and disorderly persons to leave the private property. The garages have a posted list of
15 rules of conduct. PPI officers use this list to issue an “Exclusion Notice” to repeat
violators. An exclusion notice is a written document served to the unwanted person by a
PPI officer, prohibiting the unwanted person from returning to the property for a
specified amount of time. The Portland Police Bureau, Central District, maintains the
notices and PPB officers arrest repeat violators and charge them with trespassing. 53
The BID pays the PPB the full salaries of three full-time Portland police officers to patrol
the BID on bicycles. These three officers, permanently assigned to patrol the BID, work
out of the Central Police District. The Portland Police also assigns a fourth full-time
bicycle officer to patrol the BID. These four officers work different hours to provide
maximum coverage. The four bicycle officers carry PPI radios when on patrol and have
frequent interactions with the PPI officers. When a PPI officer needs police assistance,
they call the on-duty bicycle officer who also has radio communications with the
52
Portland PPI and Portland Police Bureau, Interview
53
Portland Police Bureau Commander, Interview

Portland police dispatch. The Portland officers and the PPI officers work well together
and coordinate efforts to provide the maximum coverage in the BID. 54 The daily
coverage in the BID is from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. weekdays and to 3 a.m. on weekends.
Reserve and Volunteer Police Services
The following provides an overview of reserve and volunteer programs in San

Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City. Reserve programs are a strategy to
supplement full-time patrol in communities across the county. Often Reserve Officers
are unpaid; however, there are communities that compensate Reserve Officers.
Volunteer programs operate formally within police departments where volunteers
perform administrative functions and in the community conducting citizen patrols.
San Francisco Reserve Officer Program
The SFPD Police Reserve Officer Program is an unpaid volunteer program consisting of
approximately 30 individuals. The Reserves assist and supplement the full-time officers
in many ways. Reserves patrol in vehicles, on foot patrols, and/or bicycle patrol.
Typically, Reserve Officers work alongside full-time SFPD officers. However, depending
on the training level, Reserves can conduct solo patrols. Reserve members are often
individuals that do not wish to make a full transition to full-time SFPD member, although
some envision the Reserve program as “foot in the door” to a full-time law enforcement
career.
San Francisco – Castro on Patrol
While not a formal volunteer program with the SFPD, the Castrol on Patrol is a group of
volunteers committed to increasing safety in their neighborhood. As described on their
website, Castro Community on Patrol (CCOP), founded in November 2006, is a
grassroots, non-profit organization dedicated to promoting safety and safety awareness
in the Castro and Duboce Triangle neighborhoods. CCOP volunteers patrol the
neighborhood and create a visible safety presence. Patrol volunteers note and report
violent and property crimes, as well as conditions conducive to that kind of crime, The
CCOP works closely with the San Francisco Police Department and other organizations
dedicated to community safety. The CCOP also has a formal application and training
program for the volunteers.
Los Angeles Reserve Officer Program
The Los Angeles Police Reserve Corps is an unpaid volunteer program consisting of
approximately 650 active armed Reserve Officers. The Reserve Officers are all Level I,
II or III POST-certified Reserve Officers. Level III Reserve Officers work within the
LAPD, assisting in administrative-type functions. Level I and II Reserve Officers work in
54
Portland Police Bureau Commander, Interview

the field alongside full-time LAPD officers and perform all police-related functions. Hiring
requirements are the same as full-time LAPD officers.
The Los Angeles Reserve Officers are required to volunteer 16 hours of service a
month and to attend a monthly reserve officer meeting. Reserve Officers are also
required to maintain POST certification. The LAPD Recruit Training Center provides
required training.
New York City Auxiliary Officer Program
The New York City Auxiliary Officer Program is an unpaid volunteer program consisting
of approximately 4,500 active auxiliary officers. The New York Police Department
(NYPD) recruits, hires, trains, and manages the auxiliary force. Auxiliaries are
considered employees of the NYPD and receive worker’s compensation benefits.
Auxiliaries are required to attend and pass the New York State Criminal Justice Training
Council (NYSCJTC) Basic Training course. This course is 48 hours and provides law
enforcement training that includes arrest procedures, defensive tactics, and use of a
police baton. The NYPD conducts extensive background checks on all applicants. The
minimum age for an auxiliary is 17. Auxiliary officers apply at a specific police district
and work out of that district.
The Auxiliary Officers volunteer their time and are required to work a minimum of 144
hours annually. NYPD provides uniforms and equipment. Duties include administrative
functions, patrolling neighborhoods, traffic and crowd control, search and rescue, and
assisting the department in most aspects of policing. Younger Auxiliaries often work
with specialty units of the department in undercover sting operations regarding liquor
sales to minors and other products requiring proof of age for sale of an item.
Auxiliaries do not have arrest powers other than those of any citizen. An exception to
this rule is when requested by an NYPD member to arrest a person known to have
committed a crime. The other exception is a State Law that authorizes the NYPD to give
Auxiliary Officers “peace officer status”. This limited authority is only valid during a
period of imminent or actual attack by enemy forces, and during official duties. The
primary responsibility of the Auxiliary Officer is to be the “eyes and ears” of the police
and to observe and report incidents to the NYPD by use of a department-issued radio.
Civilian Personnel
The use of civilian personnel in policing is common. During the past several years, the
City has researched the process of civilianization. The Controller’s Office most recent
memorandum issued on June 14, 2010 recommends an increase of an additional 251
civilians.
Across the county in municipalities of all sizes, civilians take on tasks such as crime
analysis, crime scene investigation, collision analysis, community outreach and other

responsibilities that do not require sworn personnel. Given the extensive research
already completed on civilianization, PSSG did not replicate the study. PSSG concurs
with the findings and recommendations to increase the use of non-sworn personnel as a
means to increase the capacity of the police department and maximize its resources.
Security Guard Services
Security Guards are a private form of policing. Ranging from small, local agencies to
large national organizations, security companies are active across the country. Each
state sets requirements, with an increased number mandating ongoing training for
retention of licensure. Individual agencies also set internal requirements ranging from
communication, emergency management, first aid, and specialized training relevant to
their particular assignment.
ASIS International, a member organization of security professionals, developed training

guidelines providing regulating agencies consistent minimum standards for professional
security services. The guidelines include 48 hours of training within the first 100 days of
employment and a requirement to pass a written and/or performance testing. Annual
training and additional firearms training for armed officers is another suggested baseline
requirement.
The security industry is growing. Community demands for protective services outpace
the growth of traditional law enforcement services. In 2008, there were 1.1 million jobs
in the security industry. Of those, approximately 55 percent were jobs in investigation
and security services, including guard and armored car services 55. The estimated
growth in the security industry is significant, with a 14 percent increase expected by
2014, which represents a faster than the national average when compared to other
professions 56. The number of police officers in 2008 was 883,600 57, lower than the
number of security guards. Of the total, local governments employed approximately 79
percent of the officers. .
Services provided by security companies vary depending on the needs of the client.
Security guards provide basic services, from fixed post watches of a specific building,
doorway, or ATM, to patrolling at transportation facilities and museums to undercover
surveillance for theft deterrence. The client and the private agency negotiate the
scheduling and fees.
In the past, the hiring of security guards appeared most commonly as a tactic for private
entities to increase the visibility of safety and enhance security. Since 9/11, the Federal
government has increased its reliance on private security for overseas missions, and
recently, municipalities have contracted with private firms for public security showing
new reliance on other forms of policing.
55
Bureau of Labor Statistics
56
57

Examples of municipalities hiring private companies include the City of Oakland,
California. In April 2009, the City of Oakland hired International Services Inc. to provide
patrol services. The hiring of the private security marked the first time the city hired
armed guards to supplement police services through street patrols. Previously, business
groups in Oakland pooled their resources to hire unarmed private security; however,
those efforts were independent of any city council action.
Historically, municipalities have hired uniformed, unarmed guards to patrol downtown or

other highly visible tourist or merchant districts. Often, a business district or grant
supplies the funding for the services.
The Rand Group conducted a study of the 30 improvement districts in downtown Los
Angeles. The study reviewed data from 1994 - 2005 and found that the districts with the
guards showed a reduction in violent crime an average 8 percent greater than the rest
of the city during that period.
In 1997, residents in New Orleans petitioned Louisiana's Legislature to create a tax on

property owners to pay for a private force. The legislation initially created 20 residential
tax districts that employed approximately 100 private guards. Since the initial legislation,
additional districts have embraced the strategy.
A unique example of public/private partnership is the Center City District (CCD)

community services program operating in Philadelphia. The Community Service
Representatives (CSRs) patrol on foot and bicycle seven days a week. Unarmed, the
CSRs wear a highly visible teal uniform and provide services ranging from first aid,
notification to the police of issues needed a response, and outreach to homeless
individuals. The CSRs work in partnership with the police and attend role call session
together. The CSRs carry a radio that connects them to the Center City Dispatch, co-
located with the police dispatch.
The CSRs and CCD provide several customized services dedicated to improving the
quality of life in the CCD. The programs includes a “public space reporting” service.
The CSRs are equipped with handheld computers and geographic information systems.
The CSRs go block-by-block and record quality of life issues such as code violations,
graffiti, and other issues that need attention. The information is transmitted to the
appropriate city or private agency and then the CCD follows up to ensure that the issue
is resolved. In addition, the CSRs provide outreach services to homeless individuals
and connect them with social service agencies to help meet their needs. The CCD runs
the community court and involves offenders in cleanup programs as well as provides
referrals to address underlying social service needs.
Summary
Communities across the country operate police departments with fewer resources than
optimal to meet needs, as community members desire high levels of police services.
Strategies to increase the perception of safety for community members and mitigate

losses to business include the hiring of private security agencies by private entities. A
limited, but emerging number of municipalities are contracting with private companies to
supplement traditional law enforcement services.
Based on the research completed by PSSG, there does not appear to be a direct
comparison of ancillary police services with the governance structure of the San
Francisco Patrol Specials. The two strategies that are most similar to the Patrol
Specials appear to be the North Carolina Police and the Cincinnati, Ohio Private Police.
Like the Patrol Specials, the North Carolina Police and the Cincinnati Private Police
operate with government controls in place that exceed that of other security guard
regulations. Portland Patrol Inc. is similar in that they, like some of the Patrol Specials,
provide services to a group of business owners. What is significantly different about the
Patrol Specials is the ability to purchase beats and patrol city streets (discussed in the
section of the report dedicated to the Patrol Specials).
Reserve Police Officer programs are underway in police agencies across the county.
From the largest organizations to the smallest, the use of Reserve Officers is an
accepted and beneficial practice in police organizations. Many programs operate on a
volunteer basis; however, some organizations pay for the time at a rate less than that of
a full-time officer.
Employing civilian personnel is also a strategy to increase the capacity of the

department and maximize its resources.
Private security guards are the most popular type of private policing services and are
typically hired by private entities. Municipalities are struggling with budgets and the
desire for increased police services. A few examples of municipalities (such as Oakland
and New Orleans) hiring private firms for public safety and security services are
emerging as measures to meet the demands. The differentiator between the practices
employed with San Francisco Patrol Specials and the services of a private security firms
is that once hired, the private firms are under the direction and control of the
municipalities, as opposed to the Patrol Specials, who answer to private businesses and
citizens for their day-to-day operations.
Other strategies, including public/private partnerships - such as the Center City District
(CCD) community services program in Philadelphia - are emerging as viable long-term
strategies to address crime and quality-of-life issues.

Atta c h m e n t F: P a tro l S p e c ia l Ru le s a n d Re g u la tio n s
Public Safety Strategies F1

Atta c h m e n t G: In te rim Ru le s
Public Safety Strategies G1

Review of The Patrol Specials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of The Patrol Specials

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of The Patrol Specials

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER Ben Rosenfield

August 30, 2010

The Honorable Gavin Newsom

The Honorable Members, Board of Supervisors

The Honorable Members, San Francisco Police Commission

Dear Mayor Newsom, Ladies and Gentleman:

Key findings contained in the report include:

The City and County of San Francisco

The Public Safety Strategies Group

August 30, 2010

San Francisco Controller’s Office

Community Policing ................................................................................................... 22

Photograph 1: Business District .................................................................................... 25

Attachment A: About the City and County of San Francisco .................................... A1

Public Safety Strategies 1

About Patrol Specials

Perceptions of the Patrol Special Program

Overview and History of Rules and Procedures and Significant Legal

Comparative Strategies for Ancillary Police Services

Public Safety Strategies 2

Conclusions and Recommendations

Patrol Specials and their activities are private in nature.

• Private policing focuses on customers and individuals, whereas municipal or

Patrol Specials place a financial burden on the City.

Patrol Specials routinely violate the rules and procedures.

Public Safety Strategies 3

o Patrols Specials violated uniform, accountability and operational rules

The similar appearance of Patrol Specials to the SFPD causes confusion.

Future Implementation of the Patrol Specials program

Future Ancillary Police Services

Public Safety Strategies 4

Public Safety Strategies 5

Scope of the Study

Key Evaluation Questions

• What is the process for becoming a Patrol Special or Assistant in terms of

• Is the current process of oversight, supervision, and program administration

• How are the uniforms and equipment regulated?

Public Safety Strategies 6

Interviews and Observations

Patrol Specials Meetings and Interviews

Police Commission and Board of Supervisors Interviews

Public Safety Strategies 7

San Francisco Police Department and Police Officer Association Interviews

PSSG Observations of Patrol Special Activities

In addition to the interviews and review of documentation, PSSG observed Patrol

The next section provides details on the Patrol Specials.

Public Safety Strategies 8

History of the Patrol Specials

Patrol Specials Beats and Staffing

Public Safety Strategies 9

Application Process of the Patrol and Assistant Patrol Specials

Training Process of Patrol Specials

Public Safety Strategies 10

Role of Patrol Specials

Authority of the Patrol Specials

Patrol Special Uniforms

Public Safety Strategies 11