Sponsored link
Tuesday, February 27, 2024

Sponsored link

News + PoliticsSheriff's Oversight Board could ban members from speaking to the news media

Sheriff’s Oversight Board could ban members from speaking to the news media

Unusual gag order is a 'huge problem' and probably unconstitutional.


The new civilian board appointed to oversee complaints against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is considering a sweeping policy that would prevent members from talking to the news media on a wide range of issues.

Wikimedia Commons image

The policy, First Amendment advocates say, is not only bad policy but quite possible unconstitutional.

The policy states:

Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board (SDOB) Members shall not comment to the media on issues not voted upon and approved or rejected by the Board.

That means, potentially, that board members would be barred from discussing with reporters general issues involving Sheriff’s Department oversight and would prevent them from discussing items that are on an upcoming agenda.

“I’ve never heard of such a thing,” David Loy, legal director for the California First Amendment Coalition, told me. “It’s a huge problem, and there’s a very good chance it’s unconstitutional.”

Loy said that as a matter of policy, the gag order would undermine the idea of government transparency, and would also be a type of discrimination against the news media.

“You can talk to 20 of your friends about issues, but you can’t talk to the media? That’s a huge problem,” he said.

The policy also applies to social media:

Members shall not engage in social media discourse where an individual member’s opinion may be misconstrued to represent the position of SDOB as a whole. Members should also be mindful that any hint about a particular position on a pending vote could be a violation of the Brown Act or Sunshine Ordinance.

That’s a pretty broad statement; an opinion “may be misconstrued” could apply to almost anything anyone posts on social media. And an individual member taking a stand on a pending issue is by no means a violation of the Brown Act of Sunshine Ordinance. If it were, members of the Board of Supervisors, who regularly say they are for or against upcoming legislative proposals, would be in violation all the time.

The Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance say that members can’t meet in advance of a hearing behind the scenes and decide what to do. But it has no impact on what an individual member can say.

The policy was on the agenda for the Feb. 3 meeting, but has been continued to March 3. If it passes, it could set a terrible precedent for local agencies.

I will keep you posted.

48 Hills welcomes comments in the form of letters to the editor, which you can submit here. We also invite you to join the conversation on our FacebookTwitter, and Instagram

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.


Opinion: San Franciscans know a lot about tech. That’s why they should vote No on E

Everything new is not good—and we can't trust SFPD with uncontrolled surveillance

Under the Stars: A quick check-in with the incredible Lætitia Sadier

From Stereolab to Noise Pop, she still charms. Plus: chokecherry, Angelo Outlaw, Caroline Polachek, more great music

Restaurant Week season steps up to the plate

March and April mean two solid months of discounts at restaurants around the Bay Area.

More by this author

Prop. C won’t produce much housing—but could cost the city a lot of money

Breed's plan is probably worthless, city economist says—but if it works, it will cost millions.

PG&E keeps charging us more for worse service; there’s a much better alternative

Plus: A direct indictment of the state's housing policy (mandates, but no funding). That's The Agenda for Feb. 25 to March 3

Three of Breed’s police commissioners suddenly reverse on racist pretext stops

Bizarre excuses as commission votes 4-3 to limit traffic stops that have no public safety value
Sponsored link
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED