Second SF Jury Acquits Man Who Gave False Murder Confession to Escape Brutal Florida Prison Conditions
SAN FRANCISCO – After a second two-month trial, a San Francisco jury acquitted Roy Lacy on April 6th in connection with a cold case murder from 2000. In 2018, Lacy was serving a prison sentence for bank robbery in Florida when he gave a false confession to two unsolved San Francisco murders in order to escape the prison’s brutal conditions. During his first trial in November 2022, a different jury acquitted Lacy of one of the murders, but hung on the second. The District Attorney’s Office decided to retry him on the second murder. During the second trial, the jury acquitted him after one day of deliberation.
“It was clear that Mr. Lacy’s words did not match the evidence, and there was never any physical evidence linking him to this crime,” said Deputy Public Defender Elizabeth Camacho, who represented Lacy in both trials. “We made that case twice now, and are extremely grateful to this jury for holding the state to its burden and rightly finding that Mr. Lacy is innocent.”
“We know that people falsely confess or plead to things they didn’t do when they are in their lowest and most vulnerable state. That was the case for Mr. Lacy, who was being subjected to extreme violence and intimidation in a Florida prison,” said Deputy Public Defender Diamond Ward, who co-chaired Lacy’s defense team.
Mr. Lacy is concurrently serving a life sentence in California under the Three Strikes Law due to convictions for bank robbery by note. He will be transferred back into the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
“The District Attorney’s Office prosecuted this case twice — at great cost to our city — and added to the shameful trial backlog,” said Public Defender Mano Raju, whose office has been tracking the San Francisco Superior Court’s violation of numerous individuals’ Constitutional right to a speedy trial. As of Feb. 1st, the data shows 939 trials that are overdue, which includes 129 people who remain jailed beyond their trial deadline. “I commend Mr. Lacy’s defense team for the skill, attention, and compassion they brought to both of these trials,” said Raju.
MEDIA CONTACT: PubDef-MediaRelations@sfgov.org | Jessie Seyfer (415) 851-2212
**PRESS STATEMENT**
Public Defenders Urge Legislature to Stop Governor from CuttingSuccessful Resentencing Program
SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND — Thousands of people who are eligible for release back to their families and communities will remain locked in California prisons if the Legislature approves Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposal to cut funding for public defender resentencing units.
Representatives from the offices ofSan Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju and Alameda County Chief Public Defender Brendon Woods will make public comment TODAY at the California State Senate Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety, the Judiciary, Labor and Transportation session at 9:30 a.m. in Sacramento to urge legislators to preserve the funding. The Legislature is currently debating Newsom’s proposed budget.
The governor’s proposal would cut the third year of funding for the Public Defense Pilot Program, which the Legislature established in 2021 with Senate Bill 129. It set aside approximately $50 million each year for three years beginning in 2021, representing a tiny fraction (0.016%) of the overall state budget. County public defender offices across the state used that money to fund resentencing units, which employ lawyers, social workers and paralegals to review cases, petition local courts for resentencing, and connect clients to resources upon release, as well as represent some clients at parole hearings.
“This successful program addresses the fact that over-sentenced community members, many of whom are BIPOC, have little recourse for making sure they get out when they’re entitled to,” said Raju. “This painful proposed cut is out of step with what Californians want. It means fewer families can be reunited and it means less healing and rebuilding of impacted communities.”
“This proposed cut is particularly damaging because we just received this money to get our resentencing unit up and running. If anything, we need more funds, not less,” Woods said. “Prosecutors in California get nearly $1 billion more than public defenders. This is not how you create a fair system of justice.”
Legislators had promised at least three years of such funding; the governor’s proposal now cuts the third year. Public defenders already are historically underfunded compared to police and prosecutors. The proposed cuts are particularly concerning because Newsom’s proposed budget promises hundreds of millions of dollars to prosecutors and police, and billions to the prison system. By comparison, across the state and nation, public defense programs routinely receive a small fraction of the funding that district attorneys, police and sheriff’s offices receive.
Resentencing and parole are critical tools to decarcerate California’s overcrowded prisons and reunite people with their communities and families. In recent years, lawmakers approved a raft of legislation, including bills to undo California’s harsh punishments for so-called felony murder, as well as recognizing that young people are less culpable for criminal conduct because of their brain development and other factors. The Public Defense Pilot Program provides the resources to put these laws into full action.
“We’re grateful the Legislature has recognized our current system of punishment is outdated and unfair, especially when it comes to our Black and Brown communities. But these laws don’t implement themselves,” Woods said. “We need resources to hire people to do the intense work of investigating cases and filing proposals for resentencings. Gutting our budgets to do this work just as we’re getting going is short-sighted to say the least.”
The San Francisco Public Defender’s resentencing unit, known as The Freedom Project, has assisted more than 100 people in their resentencing and parole hearings, and assisted in 77 family reunifications. These efforts have saved over 1,000 years of prison time, representing a huge cost saving to taxpayers. Other public defender offices in the state have likewise helped numerous individuals reduce their sentences and return to their families and communities.
“The Freedom Project team was my lifeline—they saved my life,” said Belinda Anderson, who was represented by Danielle Harris and Stephen Liebb at the The Freedom Project. Anderson served 31 years before earning parole and being resentenced. “My second chance means I get to spend time with my family—especially my daughter and grandson—to celebrate the holidays together, along with other occasions big and small. I am successfully employed and I love the work that I do.”
This Saturday is the 60th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the right to an attorney regardless of someone’s ability to pay. Marking this anniversary, Woods co-authored an op-ed in yesterday’s East Bay Times calling for the Legislature to fund public defense and to restore funding for the Public Defense Pilot Program.
###
Members of the State Public Defender’s Office, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, and Alameda County Public Defender’s Office gather to speak at the California Senate Budget Subcommittee on Public Safety in Sacramento.
San Francisco Jury Acquits Man Who Defended Himself and Pregnant Girlfriend
SAN FRANCISCO – On Monday, Feb. 27, a jury acquitted Mario Ramirez of attempted murder and related charges, finding that Ramirez acted in self-defense and in defense of his then-pregnant girlfriend when he shot another man in January 2022. Deputy Public Defender Will Helvestine represented Ramirez, who has spent the last year in jail awaiting trial, nearly nine months past his Constitutionally mandated trial deadline due to the extreme trial backlog in San Francisco Superior Court.
The jury heard evidence that the alleged victim had assaulted Ramirez just hours before the shooting and had repeatedly threatened to assault him again. When the man confronted Ramirez and Ramirez’s girlfriend outside their home, Ramirez shot him once in the hip.
“The jury did the right and thoughtful thing in evaluating the situation for what it was – an act of self-defense and defense of others,” said Helvestine, who argued in court that the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. “What’s truly unfortunate is that Mr. Ramirez was held in jail so long past his speedy trial deadline that he missed the birth of his child.”
The alleged victim testified at trial that he and Ramirez were former friends. However, he admitted that on the night of the Jan. 29, 2022 shooting, he was under the influence of methamphetamine when he accused Ramirez of stealing from him, punched Ramirez in the face, and threatened to assault him again. Ramirez’s girlfriend testified that the attack had left Ramirez bloodied and frightened, and that the couple avoided returning home for several hours for fear that the alleged victim would be waiting there for them.
The jury acquitted Ramirez on the three main counts of attempted murder, assault with a semi-automatic weapon, and battery likely to cause great bodily injury, but convicted him on illegal gun possession.
“The opportunity to have a jury carefully review the evidence in a case, and having a highly skilled legal defense team, can make all the difference, but too many people in San Francisco are waiting months and years, often in jail or shackled to 24/7 ankle monitors, just to get that chance,” said San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, whose office has been tracking the systematic violation of speedy trial rights in San Francisco Superior Court since the beginning of the pandemic. The latest available data on the trial backlog shows approximately 840 cases with trial deadlines that have passed, including 150 people who remain jailed without trial.
The defense team was led by Deputy Public Defender Will Helvestine, Felony Paralegal Nathan Conn, and Investigator Nigel Phillips.
MEDIA CONTACT: SF Public Defender’s Office | PubDef-MediaRelations@sfgov.org; | (415) 851-2212
**PRESS RELEASE**
Asm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) Introduces State Billto Ease Financial Hardship of Jury Service,Increase Racial and Economic Diversity of Juries
AB 881, known as Be The Jury California, would expand San Francisco’s successful Be The Jury program statewide, and raise daily pay to $100 for low-to-moderate-income jurors in criminal cases.
SAN FRANCISCO — Today, Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) announced on the steps of the Hall of Justice in San Francisco that he has introduced a new state bill—Be The Jury CA (AB 881)—that would raise juror pay to $100 a day for low-to-moderate-income jurors in criminal cases across California. Ting, along with San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, San Francisco Treasurer José Cisneros, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods, spoke about how the bill will ensure that all Californians have access to a jury of their peers, as promised by the U.S. Constitution. Due to the steep financial hardship facing potential jurors, stakeholders agree that juries have become increasingly less diverse. AB 881 would build on San Francisco’s successful Be The Jury pilot program to assist jurors across the state of California, and enjoys support from both prosecutors and public defenders.
“This bill would make criminal juries across California fairer and a more accurate reflection of their communities, bringing us all closer to what the Constitution promises — a jury of our peers,” said Assemblymember Ting. “The right to a jury of one’s peers is at the core of our justice system. Individuals from all economic classes are entitled to serve on juries and should receive adequate compensation for doing so.”
While California requires employers to provide time off for employees who are summoned to jury duty, employers are not required to pay employees who serve on a jury. If a juror’s employer does not cover their salary, jurors earn nothing on their first day of service and only $15 per day after that.
“Be The Jury made it possible for me to serve as a juror without worrying about whether I could afford meals or meet my basic needs,” said Kiswendsida Kola, a participant in San Francisco’s Be The Jury program.
Because many low-income families cannot afford to forfeit days, weeks, or months of their salary, many minimum wage or low-income workers who file a claim of financial hardship are excused from service. Due to racial income inequality, low jury pay excludes many Black and Latinx community members from ever serving as a juror even though people involved in criminal cases—both the person accused and the person who may have experienced harm—often come from the same communities and share relevant life experiences.
“Too often, our indigent clients in San Francisco, as well as across California, are not afforded the right to a jury of their peers when nobody on the jury looks like them or comes from their communities,” said San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju. “Be The Jury CA can start to re-balance the scales of justice.”
“Far too often when our Black clients go to trial, there is not a single person on the jury who looks like them. This is not justice,” said Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods. “This bill will make it easier for Black and Brown people to serve on juries, and that’s going to mean fairer trials for our clients and communities.”
“This bill will improve the criminal justice system statewide significantly by ensuring that more residents are able to perform their civic duty across the state,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “When all people, regardless of income, are able to participate in the process, we get better outcomes.”
“No one should be priced out of jury service,” said San Francisco Treasurer José Cisneros. “Results from San Francisco’s Be The Jury program demonstrate that this program helps level the playing field.”
“Prior to the San Francisco pilot, juries here were trending whiter and wealthier, which threatens the right to a jury of one’s peers,” said Yolanda Jackson, executive director and general counsel of the Bar Association of San Francisco and its Justice & Diversity Center. “No individual should have to choose between feeding their family and carrying out their civic duty as a juror.”
Under the Be The Jury CA bill, jurors qualify for the daily $100 stipend if their household income is less than 80 percent of their area median income and they meet one of the additional criteria: (1) their employer does not compensate for any jury service; (2) their employer will not compensate for the estimated duration of the trial; (3) they are self-employed; or (4) they are unemployed.
Be The Jury CA is inspired by a highly successful juror pay pilot program in San Francisco made possible by legislation authored by Asm. Ting, and the following justice partners: the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, the San Francisco Financial Justice Project within the Treasurer’s Office, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, the San Francisco Bar Association, and the San Francisco Superior Court.
L-R: Assembly Member Phil Ting (author of AB881), Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods, Executive Director and General Counsel of the SF Bar Association Yolanda Jackson, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, San Francisco Treasurer Jose Cisneros. Members of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office and the Financial Justice Project of the San Francisco Treasurer’s Office who worked on creating Be The Jury join principals behind the local pilot program and those advocating for the state legislation. A San Francisco juror who participated in the Be The Jury program speaks with press at the rally announcing AB881 (Ting) in February 2023. Assemblymember Phil Ting speaks at the rally on the steps of the San Francisco Hall of Justice to announce his bill AB881 Be The Jury CA in February 2023.
MEDIA CONTACT: SF Public Defender’s Office | PubDef-MediaRelations@sfgov.org | Public relations officer Jessie Seyfer (415) 851-2212
**MEDIA ADVISORY**
Asm. Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) to Introduce State Bill to Ease Financial Hardship of Jury Service, Increase Racial and Economic Diversity of Juries
Be The Jury CA (AB 881) would expand San Francisco’s successful Be The Jury program statewide, and raise daily pay to $100 for low-to-moderate-income jurors in criminal cases.
WHAT: A press conference announcing a new bill, Be The Jury CA (AB 881), authored by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), which would raise juror pay in criminal cases from $15 to $100 per day for low-to-moderate-income jurors to ensure that all Californians have access to a jury of their peers as promised by the U.S. Constitution. Be The Jury CA would expand San Francisco’s successful Be The Jury pilot program statewide to assist jurors across the state of California, and enjoys support from both prosecutors and public defenders.
WHEN: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 starting at 10 a.m.
WHERE: Steps of San Francisco Hall of Justice, 850 Bryant Street.
WHO:
Assemblymember Phil Ting, author of Be The Jury CA
San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju
San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins
San Francisco Treasurer José Cisneros
Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods
Note: A juror who participated in San Francisco’s Be The Jury program will be available to speak to reporters about his experience.
Re-Elected SF Public Defender Mano Raju Sworn In at Community Ceremony and Black History Month Celebration
SAN FRANCISCO – Mano Raju was sworn in for a four-year term as San Francisco Public Defender at a community event celebrating Black History Month in the Bayview last night. Raju, who was re-elected in November, is the only elected Public Defender in California. The event was co-hosted by the Racial Justice Committee and the Black, Latinx, and API Affinity Groups of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office and attended by special guest speakers and performers, including District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton, President of the SF Police Commission Cindy Elias, and John “Yahya” Johnson of the popular “Ear Hustle” podcast, who administered the oath of office.
“I have been told by many across the country who have seen our innovations and accomplishments over the last few years that we are the gold standard for a public defender’s office, but what I want to pledge to you is that I am not content,” said Raju. The work we do is too vital, too impactful, and too far-reaching to not continually seek to do it more efficiently, to do it bigger, and to do it more boldly.”
“I can say that Black lives matter to Mano and Black people matter to Mano,” said Jacque Wilson, managing attorney of the San Francisco Public Defender’s office’s Misdemeanor Unit and chair of its Black Affinity Group, commending the increased diversity of people in leadership positions. “Since Mano has been the Public Defender, he has appointed Black people into leadership roles in almost every unit of our office I can think of. Key faces in key places, and that makes a difference.”
“Mano has always been involved in our allied struggles because he believes and understands that the issues that we are always facing at 850 Bryant or any of the other courts, have deep seeded roots in the lack of housing, education, and employment-related matters” said Carmen Sanchez, a social worker in the Immigration Unit, who also lauded the class action lawsuit Raju approved which helped liberate hundreds of people from ICE detention centers during the pandemic.
“I find it disconcerting that in America you’re innocent until proven guilty, so why is it then that the resources for public defenders are not commensurate with the offices that prosecute?” said John “Yahya” Johnson, Co-Producer of “Ear Hustle” podcast, who administered the community oath to Raju, spoke about the need for more resources for public defenders who operate on significantly smaller budgets than district attorneys, law enforcement agencies, and prisons.
Raju spoke about numerous achievements of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office over the past three years – including increasing the economic and racial diversity of juries via the Be The Jury compensation program; successfully pressing the Police Commission to pass a policy that curtails racially-biased traffic stops by police, reuniting families through resentencing with state funding for the Freedom Project; establishing the groundbreaking Adachi Project using art and film to elevate the voices of those impacted most by the criminal legal system; expanding the capacity of the Clean Slate team that helps clean up criminal records; and instituting a modern leadership structure.
Raju was a felony manager and director of training when he was appointed to lead the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office in 2019 after the sudden passing of longtime Public Defender Jeff Adachi. Raju subsequently won his election in November 2019 to fulfill the rest of Adachi’s term, and recently won re-election in November 2022 to a full four-year term.
##
The event streamed on San Francisco Public Defender’s Office Facebook live.
MEDIA CONTACT: PubDef-MediaRelations@sfgov.org | Valerie Ibarra (628) 249-7946
**PRESS RELEASE**
Murder Charges Dismissed Against Men Implicated in Death of Famed Private Investigator Jack Palladino
Defense uncovered witness credibility issues; Ongoing trial delays caused men to languish in jail for two years
SAN FRANCISCO – Prosecutors this week dismissed all charges against Lawrence Thomas and Tyjone Flournoy, who have been in jail for two years awaiting trial in connection with the death of famed private investigator Jack Palladino. Citing a lack of evidence, prosecutors dismissed the charges, which included attempted robbery and murder, on Jan. 31. Deputy Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway represented Thomas, and her defense team helped uncover witness credibility issues that contributed to the prosecution’s dismissal during a pretrial hearing. Flournoy was represented by a private attorney.
“The prosecution did the ethical thing in dismissing these charges, as none of the physical evidence corroborated the early assumptions reported by an unreliable witness,” said Hathaway. “It’s important for us, as Mr. Thomas’s legal team, to help clear his name after a flurry of misinformation was reported in the wake of Mr. Palladino’s death.”
On Jan. 28, 2021, Palladino was in front of his house taking photos with a large camera when he encountered Thomas and Flournoy, who were driving on a block that had been closed to through traffic during the pandemic. Palladino suffered a fall directly after the encounter, and the events leading up to the fall became the major focus of court proceedings.
A witness first told police that the passenger (Flournoy) tried to steal Palladino’s camera through the window, and that the driver (Thomas) then sped away, dragging Palladino by the camera before he fell and hit his head. That statement ended up to be false and unfounded.
At a preliminary hearing in April 2021, defense attorney Hathaway cross-examined the witness, who admitted that he never actually saw the interaction between Palladino and the men in the car, and had only assumed that they were trying to rob him. Physical evidence also contradicted the witness’s theory, as there was no DNA from the passenger found on the camera, which remained in Palladino’s possession.
Thomas maintained that he drove away because Palladino was yelling at them through the passenger window and hit their car with his hand, which other witnesses also heard. After the men drove off, Palladino lost his footing and fell. He was transported to the hospital and died several days later.
Despite these revelations, a judge ruled that the case could go forward, and Thomas and Flournoy asserted their right to a speedy trial. Their trial was set for September 2021, but the massive trial backlog in San Francisco Superior Court delayed the trial nearly 18 months beyond their Constitutionally-mandated deadline.
San Francisco Superior Court has accrued a massive trial backlog since the pandemic, and continues to violate speedy trial rights by delaying trials past their statutory deadlines. As of December 2022, there were 838 cases past their deadlines, including 147 individuals who remained jailed without trial. Throughout the pandemic, people in SF County jail have been subjected to 23-hour lockdowns, with limited visitation and programming, and no direct sunlight.
“Our defenders did the crucial work of scrutinizing the state’s evidence which led to a just dismissal, but there are hundreds of people, like these two men who just spent two years in jail, suffering the injustice of waiting for their day in court,” said San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, whose office has been taking legal and direct action to stoke the court to address the backlog.
The defense team for Mr. Thomas was led by Deputy Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway and Investigator Collin Olsen.
##
Reference: Case No. 21001067 | San Francisco Superior Court
Please read, share, subscribe to our newsletters with updates about the work of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office as we fight for the rights and safety of our clients and our communities with courage, humanity and integrity. You can sign up here to receive these in your inbox.
The Racial Justice Committee of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office march with Black Lives Matter in the Mission District, San Francisco – June 3, 2020.
Jessie Seyfer, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, jessie.seyfer@sfgov.org, (415) 851-2212
***PRESS RELEASE***
Coalition of 110+ Civil Rights, Traffic Safety, and Community Groups Commends San Francisco Police Commission for Adopting Historic Policy to End Racially-Biased Pretext Stops
SAN FRANCISCO — Last night, in a historic win for racial justice, the San Francisco Police Commission voted 4 to 2 — with commissioners Max Carter-Oberstone, Cindy Elias, Kevin Benedicto, and Jesus Yanez voting in favor — to adopt significant changes to traffic stop policies to curtail the use of racially-biased traffic stops, also known as pretext stops. Police use these alleged traffic violations as a “pretext” to detain and search people, wreaking untold economic, physical, psychological, and intergenerational harm, especially against Black and brown San Franciscans.
The new set of rules constitutes the most comprehensive policy in the country to address racially-biased traffic stops. The new policy limits police from stopping community members for nine categories of vehicle code violations (see list below) as the primary reason for the stop. It also only permits police to ask investigatory questions or ask for permission to conduct a consent search if reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a criminal offense arises during a permitted traffic stop.
After many months of holding working-group and listening sessions to gather community feedback, the Police Commission passed the policy to address the fact that San Francisco mirrors the state and nation in over-policing communities of color via pretextual stops. In 2021, Black people made up less than 5 percent of the population of San Francisco, yet accounted for 26 percent of all stops and 36 percent of all searches.
In November 2021, the Coalition to End Biased Stops, a group of more than 110 community organizations and advocates, first presented a letter to the Police Commission detailing recommendations for ending racially-biased traffic stops in San Francisco. Since then, the Coalition has advocated for the Commission to identify a comprehensive list of codes for which SFPD cannot stop drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, to ensure that Black and brown community members are protected from pretext stops. The Coalition commends the Police Commission for taking this critical step in ending pretext stops by approving many of these recommended revisions to its Department General Order, or set of policy changes. In the revised DGO that was approved last night, the nine reasons for stops that officers would not be able to use without further justification are:
Failure to display a front license plate;
Failure to display proper registration tags;
Failure to illuminate license plate;
Driving with malfunctioning tail lights (unless all lights are out);
Driving with malfunctioning brake lights (unless all brake lights are out);
Having an object affixed to window or hanging from rearview mirror (unless the item obstructs the driver’s view and substantially increases likelihood of injury or death);
Failure to signal while turning or changing lanes;
Sleeping in a car; and,
Pedestrian or bicycle infractions unless there is an immediate danger of crash.
Members of the Coalition to End Biased Stops — which includes GLIDE Foundation, SF Bicycle Coalition, the ACLU of Northern California, Office of the San Francisco Public Defender, and Walk San Francisco — provided the following quotes in response to last night’s historic vote:
Miguel Bustos, Senior Director for the Center for Social Justice, GLIDE: “With this vote, the San Francisco Police Commission has finally recognized the inefficiency of pretext stops and the disparate harms they inflict. San Francisco’s communities of color deserve to be free from unjustifiable police scrutiny, and this DGO represents an important step to align the Police Department with best practices that have already been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions across the country. Our support for this policy change is deeply rooted in our own community histories of being targeted by police stops, and fighting against the pain and humiliation of these experiences.”
Claire Amable, Movement Building Manager at theSF Bicycle Coalition: “Ending pretext stops is a significant first step in making our streets safer for those walking, biking, and rolling. This is especially true for Black and brown communities, who are both historically harmed by the biased practice of pretext stops, and who live in neighborhoods that are significantly over-represented in our city’s High-Injury Network. Ending this practice allows SFPD to prioritize limited resources on enforcing those dangerous driving behaviors that actually harm and kill people, helping achieve the City’s Vision Zero goal by the end of next year. We hope to continue working with community stakeholders to alleviate concerns about bike safety and add bike stops back in the list of banned stops.”
Jodie Medeiros, Executive Director of Walk San Francisco: “Last night’s Police Commission vote to pass DGO 9.07 is huge for both safety and racial justice. Limited police resources should be focused on the most dangerous driving behaviors.”
Mano Raju, San Francisco Public Defender: “This vote to pass the most comprehensive policy limiting racially-biased traffic stops in the country is an important step toward healing racial injustices among communities affected by this pervasive police practice. These stops have unjustly entangled Brown and black people in the criminal legal system and have inflicted trauma and harm on generations of communities of color. I extend enormous thanks to our coalition partners for their dedication to driving change on this issue, and to the San Francisco Police Commissioners who joined this historic vote.”
Yoel Haile, Director, Criminal Justice Program, ACLU of Northern California: “Last night the San Francisco Police Commission voted to ban pretext stops, a law enforcement tactic that has been used all over the country to racially profile Black and brown people. While today we celebrate this key victory, we will never cease working to protect our community from police harassment and brutality.”
Coalition of 110+ Civil Rights, Traffic Safety, and Community Groups Urge San Francisco Police Commission to End Racially-Biased Pretext Stops
SAN FRANCISCO — Today at 10 a.m., the Coalition to End Biased Stops held a press conference inside San Francisco’s City Hall to call for an end to racially-biased traffic stops, also known as “driving, bicycling, or walking while Black or brown” or “pretext stops.” The press conference was held with members of the Board of Supervisors, Police Commissioners, the Coalition, residents who have been personally impacted by pretext stops, and community leaders in anticipation of the San Francisco Police Commission’s vote tonight at 5:30 p.m. on significant revisions to the Police Department’s traffic stop policies. Should the Commissioners vote to adopt these changes, the new set of rules would be the most comprehensive policy in the country to address racially-biased traffic stops.
The Coalition to End Biased Stops is committed to ending racially-biased traffic stops by police in San Francisco, and has been building support for these changes over the past 16 months. Police use these alleged traffic violations as a “pretext” to detain and search people, wreaking untold economic, physical, psychological, and intergenerational harm, especially on Black and brown San Franciscans.
The numbers are stark: Multiple studies have shown that Black drivers are disproportionately stopped by police in San Francisco. Black drivers make up 19% of all traffic stops but just 5% of the population. A recently published SPUR analysis of 2019 traffic stop data found that Black drivers were stopped by the police the most for having their “license plates displayed incorrectly,” but received tickets just 22% of the time they were stopped, indicating that stops weren’t actually related to driver behavior, but were instead pretext stops. Other jurisdictions have already taken initial or significant steps toward banning pretext stops, including Berkeley, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and the state of Virginia.
The draft Department General Order that will be voted on at tonight’s Commission meeting would constitute a critical step in ending pretext stops. To ensure Black and brown community members are protected from pretext stops, the Coalition advocated for a comprehensive list of codes for which SFPD cannot stop drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. In the revised DGO, the nine reasons for stops that officers would not be able to use without further justification are:
Failure to display a front license plate;
Failure to display proper registration tags;
Failure to illuminate license plate;
Driving with malfunctioning tail lights (unless all lights are out);
Driving with malfunctioning brake lights (unless all brake lights are out);
Having an object affixed to window or hanging from rearview mirror (unless the item obstructs the driver’s view and substantially increases likelihood of injury or death);
Failure to signal while turning or changing lanes;
Sleeping in a car; and,
Pedestrian or bicycle infractions unless there is an immediate danger of crash.
Members of the Coalition to End Biased Stops – which includes GLIDE Foundation, SF Bicycle Coalition, the ACLU of Northern California, Office of the San Francisco Public Defender, and Walk San Francisco – provided the following quotes in support of ending pretext stops:
Miguel Bustos, Senior Director of GLIDE’s Center for Social Justice, said, “Willie McCoy, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Sam Dubose, Walter Scott, Daunte Wright, and Rayshard Brooks should still be alive. They were all Black, and police killed them during ordinary traffic stops for violations that did not threaten public safety. Thankfully, the Police Commission is voting tonight at 5:30 pm, on whether to adopt the most comprehensive policy in the United States to address the harms caused by pretext stops. These policy changes have the overwhelming support of community, including the more than 110 local organizations making up the Coalition to End Biased Stops.”
Miguel Bustos, GLIDE SF, was the MC for the press conference of the Coalition to End Biased Stops on January 11, 2023. The coalition rallied at City Hall in advance of a vote by the San Francisco Police Commission on new traffic stop policies that would curtail pretext stops which are often used to harass people of color.
Mano Raju, San Francisco Public Defender, said, “As we know from the deaths of Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Sam Dubose, Walter Scott, Daunte Wright and Rayshard Brooks, racially-biased traffic stops can be fatal for people of color. We can and should do better. The commission has the power to end these racially biased pretext stops. And now is the time.”
Mano Raju, the elected Public Defender of San Francisco, whose office has been instrumental in working toward putting an end to racially-biased pretext traffic stops in San Francisco.
Claire Amable, Movement Building Manager, SF Bicycle Coalition, said, “Pretext stops instill fear, cause incalculable psychological and physical harm, and the data shows they don’t make our streets safer for anyone. We believe putting an end to them will make streets safer for Black and brown people. Ending this practice will allow SFPD to prioritize our limited resources on making stops for the most dangerous driving behaviors; speeding, running red lights and stop signs, failing to yield while turning and failing to yield to pedestrians. We look forward to the Police Commission hearing tonight and encourage the commissioners to put an end to this practice of pretext stops, today.”
Claire Amable of the SF Bicycle Coalition.
Yoel Haile, Director, Criminal Justice Program, ACLU of Northern California, said “Pretext stops happen everywhere in the country, every day. For people of color, pretext stops are as ubiquitous as breathing. SFPD frequently use minor traffic violations – like hanging an air freshener or prayer bead, sleeping in your car, or a broken taillight – to stop and search people. Those pretext stops disproportionately target Black and brown people. Let us protect our community and end biased, pretext stops once and for all, tonight”
District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton, said, “I can remember being stopped as a teenager and pulled over because I had a clear plastic covering on my license plate. It was not obstructive in any way. It was a clear covering. But this was an excuse at the time of the stop. Pretext stops involve stopping people because they look a certain way, because an officer feels a certain way. This is something that we have to stop immediately. They’re terrifying, extremely traumatizing and it’s unfortunate that this has been the status quo for Black and brown people. It’s not normal and it is unacceptable.”
Shamann Walton, San Francisco Supervisor of District 10
Carl Takei, Senior Staff Attorney and Program Manager of the Criminal Justice Reform Program at Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus, said, “Along with other Asian American and Pacific Islander organizations, we join the call to end pretext stops in San Francisco. Our support for this policy is deeply rooted in the AAPI history of being targeted by police traffic and pedestrian stops and our community history of fighting against this racial profiling. In supporting today’s policy, my organization and others are remembering and choosing to honor that history. Our shared trauma and shared experience of injustice are why we stand against pretext stops, against racially-biased policing, and in solidarity with our fellow communities of color.”
