San Francisco moves to increase oversight of private security guards following bias complaints
San Francisco California January 28, 2022
San Francisco is trying to step up oversight of private security companies by reviewing a 50-year-old local law that was intended to regulate the firms but is being largely unenforced.
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to launch a six-month study of a 1972 law that requires private security firms to register with the city, pay annual fees and abide by certain rules established by the San Francisco Police Department.
Supervisor Catherine Stefani sought the review after her constituents raised concerns that private security guards had in some cases racially profiled members of the public. In investigating those reports, Stefani’s office found that the 1972 law, Article 25, spelled out a number of provisions to regulate security firms, but they were almost entirely ignored.
“What became clear, almost immediately, was that Article 25 is not currently implemented in any meaningful way in San Francisco, nor have we unearthed any evidence of it ever being implemented since 1972,” Stefani said.
The police department, in conjunction with the city controller’s office, will now conduct an analysis of Article 25 to help supervisors decide which components should be enforced, which parts should be scrapped and whether any new rules should be added to bring the regulations up to date.
Stefani said she was responding specifically to reports from residents in her northwest San Francisco district who said people had been harassed by security guards while walking down the street. She also pointed to an incident last year in which a Black fifth-grade student was stopped by security guards at the Castro Safeway on Market Street and falsely accused of stealing.
“Something needs to be done,” Stefani said.
The city’s review will include the development of an official police process to regulate private security in San Francisco, establishment of non-discrimination provisions that are now absent from Article 25 and creation of a complaint process for members of the public to report suspected violations of the law, Stefani said.
One of the concerned residents was Katie Colley, who wrote to city officials about “some unfortunate and inexcusable interactions with children of color and private security firm personnel in my neighborhood.”
Colley, who lives in Stefani’s district, said that in one example, a security guard stopped a Black teenager who was walking on the street and threatened the teenager with a gun. Another instance involved a security guard allegedly following a 12-year-old person of color, threatening them verbally and taking photos of them while they were on a public street, Colley said.
“As a mother of two Black children, I feel it is safer for my children to walk our streets knowing that the police are trained to combat racial profiling, have de-escalation training, wear body cameras and there are reporting mechanisms should anything unlawful occur,” Colley said in an email to city supervisors this month. “But all this work for police reform does not mean anything if citizens in our city can by-pass the police, hire private security firms and circumvent these protections, protections specifically created for children who look like mine.”
San Francisco police officials have expressed support for the review of Article 25 but have noted that part of the study will include determining whether any of the local provisions have been superseded by state law.
Owen Scharlotte, company manager of San Francisco’s Nob Hill Security, told The Chronicle he was receptive to the idea of the city keeping a closer eye on reports of discrimination by private security guards. Scharlotte said his firm typically employs 25 to 50 guards who cover about 15 to 20 job sites.
“We’d support a reporting mechanism that keeps track of allegations of harassment by any company or agency operating in San Francisco,” Scharlotte said in an email. “Further, we’d support a comprehensive analysis by SFPD of current security company regulations that incorporates input from community members, police, security companies, and security clients.”
sfchronicle.com
