SFPD announces major reforms to rape investigations following SF Standard report
San Francisco police leaders have committed to changing the way sexual assault and rape investigations are handled following extensive reporting by The Standard about the SFPD’s abysmal clearance rate, which is less than half the national average and one of the lowest in the state.
Nearly 100 people filled the seats in City Hall’s legislative chambers Thursday for a three-hour hearing called by Supervisor Myrna Melgar and several colleagues. Melgar opened the proceedings by citing The Standard’s July report, which found that police systematically failed to investigate sexual assault cases, in violation of state law.
SFPD Chief Derrick Lew, Assistant Chief Nicole Jones, and Special Victims Unit Captain William Toomey were called to answer questions.
“We’ve heard the concerns raised about SVU, and I take them seriously,” said Lew. “ We also come to this conversation with humility. There are things we believe we are doing well, and there are areas where we know we need to get better.”
The Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee usually seats three supervisors: Chair Danny Sauter, Bilal Mahmood, and Alan Wong. On Thursday, five more joined them: Melgar, Jackie Fielder, Connie Chan, Chyann Chen, and Matt Dorsey. Only Supervisors Rafael Mandelman, Stephen Sherrill, and Shamann Walton were not in attendance. The hearing was organized in conjunction with the Commission on the Status of Women.
San Francisco’s Mayor’s Office for Victims’ Rights and the SFPD presented competing visions for exactly what changes the SVU will make. Ivy Lee, director of the Mayor’s Office for Victims’ Rights, laid out recommendations developed over the past several months, drawing guidance from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Department of Justice under Presidents Obama and Biden, state police training standards, and local and national legal advocacy organizations.
“We are not asking that sexual assault investigations are treated differently than any other investigation,” said Lee. “What we are asking for and request is that sexual assault investigations are treated like all the other investigations.”
The recommendations, first reported in The Standard on Tuesday, included an annual independent review of closed, inactive, and unfounded cases by trained outside advocates; a codified list of investigative steps required before a case can be shelved; and an explicit shift toward investigations that center on corroborating or contradicting a suspect’s account, rather than a victim’s.
The goal, said Lee, is to “equip investigators to conduct rigorous, unbiased investigations.”
The SFPD presentation (opens in new tab) mirrored many of Lee’s recommendations, with some meaningful exceptions. For instance, there was no mention of the department shifting toward suspect-centered investigations.
Toomey, who presented for the SFPD, said that by the end of this year, SVU investigators will have to complete a standardized checklist documenting the steps taken and remaining leads before moving a sexual assault case to “inactive.” Supervisors will review the checklists. Also by year’s end, supervisors will begin monthly reviews of cases, according to Toomey.
The victims’ rights office had laid out specific steps, including interviewing suspects, canvassing for video and witnesses, and reviewing suspects’ social media and criminal records.
‘A different definition of probable cause’
Much of the hearing turned on the standard that police use to move a rape case forward to the district attorney’s office for possible charges.
Lee, a civil rights attorney, explained how police should make arrests and present cases to prosecutors once they have probable cause. Under state law, she said, a credible victim account of nonconsent meets that bar.
When asked about a hypothetical situation of a victim who reports a sexual assault, Lee said, “It should not be held to that highest standard, which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ before it’s presented to the DA.”
“Respectfully, we fundamentally disagree that these are cases that should be inactive. Because the survivor has said that they did not give consent. Her account is credible. These are cases that should proceed to the next step,” said Lee.
Several supervisors raised the case at the center of The Standard’s July report, in which a victim gave a statement, and a rape kit produced a DNA match, but no arrest was made.
“We’re not here to say that in every single case we have gotten this right,” Jones said.
On the 14% clearance rate The Standard reported, Jones said, “We’re endeavoring to not be at 14% again and to only be on the rise.”
When asked why cases with victim testimony and a known suspect were made inactive, Toomey said, “ Speaking as a whole, it’d be difficult to say that there’s a particular back pattern to this that continues with cases like this. But the knowledge of who the suspect is, is obviously a very compelling piece of evidence to determine the crimes he may have committed.”
Mahmood asked Toomey repeatedly why the SFPD makes so few arrests in these cases, especially when a victim has identified a suspect.
“So are you saying then that the survivor’s account is not probable cause?” Mahmood asked.
“In and of itself, we would have to review to ensure that it’s correct, that that information is correct,” Toomey said.
Asked whether a suspect’s claim that sex was consensual ends an investigation, Toomey said, “Absolutely not.”
However, that contradicts the SFPD’s most recent public report on the status of sexual assault cases. The department is required to report the status of cases in which the victim endured a rape exam at San Francisco General Hospital. Of 170 cases in which rape kits were administered from January to July, 132 are listed as inactive. One listed reason: “Known Suspect/Victim cooperative. Suspect thought the sex was consensual and there is no other corroborating evidence.”
“ We might have a different definition of probable cause here, it seems,” said Mahmood.
Who reviews the cases
In place of an independent review, the SFPD proposed a “recurring review” of aggregate case outcomes by the SVU, other police units, the district attorney’s office, and “appropriate law enforcement partners,” to begin by June 2027.
“We also recognize the value of bringing qualified advocates and other experts from outside law enforcement into this process,” Toomey said.
Under the proposal from the victims’ rights office, modeled on a practice it attributed to Philadelphia, advocates would review cases at police headquarters under nondisclosure agreements.
Lee called the annual model “quality control” — a way to “identify problems and solve them as soon as possible.”
Lee said she doesn’t see why the SFPD would not be able to conduct an independent audit of sexual assault cases using the model in place at police departments in New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Austin, Texas.
“ A hundred percent there’s a way to do this,” she said.
The Women’s Law Project, which has run Philadelphia’s advocate review for 26 years, submitted testimony urging San Francisco to adopt the model and offering to help build it.
Fielder asked whether any officers had been internally investigated over their handling of sexual assault cases. Jones said she didn’t know, because such complaints go to the Department of Police Accountability.
The Standard reported in July that more than 50 complaints about the SFPD’s handling of sexual assault cases had been filed with the DPA over four years. The agency sustained only one of these complaints, after an officer admitted in 2023 that he had responded to a 911 call about a sexual assault by telling the victim, “We don’t have time for this fucking bullshit again.”
Separately, SFPD Internal Affairs has opened investigations into three officers over sexual assault allegations in the past year, according to reports to the Police Commission. All three cases remain open.
What’s next
Melgar said she is drafting a resolution outlining the changes the SFPD agreed upon at Thursday’s hearing. She plans to introduce it Oct. 27. It will be voted on by the Board of Supervisors in November and, if passed, sent to the Police Commission by December. Unlike the board, the commission has authority to set SFPD policy.
“The Police Commission has an important role in setting policy for this department, and we welcome that oversight,” Lew said.
After the hearing, Lee told The Standard she believes the SFPD’s new leadership is committed to reforms “that will fundamentally change the way that these investigations operate.”
But it will take continued pressure. “I think when the mayor is clear about his support for these recommendations, that they will be done,” she said.
Mayor Daniel Lurie met with Lee last week for the first time since taking office, according to The Standard’s review of the mayor’s calendar.
Lurie did not respond to requests for comment from The Standard about whether he supports the recommendations or would press the SFPD to adopt them.