HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 131-2023 (23-567)City of South San Francisco
City Council
• Resolution: RES 131-2023
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File Number: 23-567 Enactment Number: RES 131-2023
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AN UPDATED MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING (MOU) VERSION 16 BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
TO RECEIVE AN ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS
OF THE MOU.
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco and South San Francisco Unified School District
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the operation of a School Liaison
Officer program, including annual reporting regarding and review of the program; and
WHEREAS, it was discussed at the March 22, 2023, Council Meeting that the reporting period be
amended to June/July following the end of the school year; and
WHEREAS, the report will be based on information available from the concluding year; and
WHEREAS, renewal and termination of the MOU shall remain in effect through June 30, 2024,
and;
WHEREAS, beginning in June/July 2023 and each June/July thereafter the MOU shall be
considered for renewal by both the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School
District; and
WHEREAS, the first comprehensive annual report was rescheduled to August 2023 and reviewed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
that the City Council approves the updated MOU Version 16 between the City of South San Francisco and
the South San Francisco Unified School District, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of South San Francisco or
designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute the updated MOU on behalf of the City of South San
Francisco, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, and to take any other action consistent with
the intent of this Resolution.
City of South San Francisco
File Number: 23-567
Enactment Number: RES 131-2023
At a meeting of the City Council on 8/23/2023, a motion was made by Councilmember Coleman,
seconded by Councilmember Flores, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 5 Mayor Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, Councilmember Addiego,
Councilmember Coleman, and Councilmember Flores
Attest by W �L 4L
4a Govea Acosta, City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
SSFUSD-SSFPD MOU *DRAFT* (ver. 4& 16)
This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is made by the South San Francisco Unified School
District ("District") and the City of South San Francisco regarding their mutual understanding of
the matters described below. This MOU consists of guidelines to inform the relationship between
the District and the School Liaison Officer ("SLO") of the South San Francisco Police
Department ("SSFPD"), which relationship is subject to annual review as set forth below. This
document will work in conjunction with the District's Expectations for Student Success
Handbook (the " District Handbook"); and all applicable city, state, and federal laws that
provide guidance on how to properly handle common cases that are generated on school
grounds. Some of the laws related to searches and questioning of students are
summarized in Appendix 1 to this MOU, which may be updated to reflect changes in the
law without requiring an amendment to this MOU.
It is the intention of the District and SSFPD to maintain collaborative efforts to provide a safe
and healthy school environment for students, staff, and visitors. In doing so, the District
recognizes the impact SLOs may have on different student groups, and will prioritize student
safety and relationship building.
I. Goals and Objectives:
a) Protect the constitutional and civil rights of students.
b) Maintain a safe and secure environment on school campuses which will be conducive to
learning.
c) Establish a positive working partnership.
d) SSFPD desires to promote positive attitudes regarding the role of police in society
through non -punitive, alliance -building interactions with students and staff, and will
seek the District's partnership and input of District administrators in creating such
opportunities.
e) The District desires to reduce student suspensions, expulsions, and referrals to the
criminal justice system to the furthest extent possible. The District also desires to reduce
and eliminate racial disparities in contacts with students.
f) Conduct criminal investigations.
g) Refer student cases to restorative justice alternatives/programs and court diversion to
the greatest extent possible prior to relying on the court or penal system.
h) Ensure that all SSFPD Officers understand the needs, strengths, and challenges of
various student groups based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, immigration status, or affiliation
with any other similar identifiable group. SSFPD currently provides all officers,
1
including SLOs, with training in areas such as cultural diversity, racial bias prevention,
crisis intervention, bias and racial profiling prevention and principled policing, along
with other training. SSFPD will continue to prepare SLOB through training and
experience to meet the unique requirements needed for an SLO to interact
appropriately with students and staff in a school setting. Annually, SSFPD Chief of Police
and his/her staff and District school administrators will meet to review SLO training
requirements and collaborate on a joint list of required training for SLOB, recognizing
that over time, training needs may change. The SLO will receive specialized training
regarding the education of students with disabilities, as identified under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, to help the SLO understand the unique needs of students with disabilities.
II. Non -Discrimination:
The parties are committed to complying with existing laws that prohibit the use of students'
race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic status,
age, cultural group, immigration status, or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group as
the basis for providing differing levels of law enforcement service or inconsistent enforcement
of the law. Additionally, in accordance with Federal and State law which provides that
undocumented students must be provided the same education offered to citizens, and which
protects undocumented students from unreasonable search and seizure; in order for all
students and families to feel comfortable and secure in the school environment; and consistent
with the City of South San Francisco's existing policies for the SSFPD, SLOB will not question
students or their parents or family members about their immigration status.
III. District's Role and Responsibility:
a) Ensure student welfare as its highest priority.
b) Establish and implement student safety and positive school climate programs.
c) Develop procedures to handle campus safety issues.
d) Develop emergency response procedures.
e) Develop a school safety plan.
f) Establish and follow procedures for referring SLO involvement.
g) District school administrators shall not request information related to student contacts with
law enforcement outside of the timeframe for which the District has responsibility for the
student.
h) Annually, District school administrators will receive and provide training on when to contact
police and when not to contact them, pursuant to established District processes, to ensure
clarity of expectations.
2
i) Handle all student disciplinary concerns that are not mandatory in nature for and address
situations without the involvement of SLOB (beyond the mandatory scope of Cal. Ed. Code
§ 48902 and Penal Code § 245).
IV. School Liaison Officer's Role and Responsibility:
a) The School Liaison Officer ("SLO") is a police officer; not a schoolteacher, school
administrator, or school counselor, and therefore will not be expected or asked to act in
those roles. The SLO will work with families, individual students, and other school staff
members with counseling and guidance efforts when requested and appropriate, and will
deferto the decisions of those groups, unless there is a criminal aspect.
b) Coordinate all activities with the principal and staff members concerned; seek
permission, guidance, and advice prior to enacting any programs within the school.
c) When it pertains to preventing a disruption that would, if ignored, place students
and staff at risk of harm, the SLO will assist with resolving the problem to guard against
risk of harm. In all other cases, disciplining students and addressing other conduct
deemed inappropriate is the responsibility of the District.
d) Provide students, staff, and parents with a familiar and recognizable law enforcement
contact. SLOs will work to create positive relationships with students and staff through
appropriate social interactions when not responding to requests for assistance.
e) Attend various sporting events and school activities as needed and as called upon by
school administrators (subject to approval by the Superintendent or designee), for the
purpose of proactive enforcement and community interaction. As set forth in Section III
above, the District shall develop and implement an internal process for determining the
need for police involvement at such sporting events and school activities.
f) The District and SSFPD believe the U.S. Department of Education's position that
"restraint and seclusion should be avoided to the greatest extent possible without
endangering the safety of students and staff" is the best practice to follow in nearly all
situations. The SLO should only use a physical restraint device (e.g. handcuffs or other
restraints) in cases that require the physical arrest of a student for referral to the
criminal justice system, or to prevent the involved individual from injuring themselves or
others.
g) If doing so is practical and will not interfere with other duties, when working on District
campuses, the SLO will wear a designated alternate uniform to present a more casual
appearance (i.e. — polo shirt with utility slacks, or business suit). When wearing the
designated alternate uniform, officers may have all necessary safety equipment for the
performance of their duties, including without limitation a bullet -resistant vest worn
3
under their clothing and all use -of -force tools to allow for appropriate de-escalation.
V. Role of School Liaison Officers During Investigations at School Sites:
a) School disciplinary investigations are a separate and distinct process from police
investigations, which occur only when there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
In such cases, these processes will occur in parallel. In some cases, police may inform a
school/district of an incident that falls within school/district jurisdiction to address at a
school discipline level, and in other cases police may respond to a report of a crime which
has been investigated by the school/district. Although information gathered in parallel
investigations of the same issue may be shared to inform the school and police of
additional details not acquired within the scope of either of their independent
investigations, searches and interviews facilitated by either the school/district or police do
not replace or truncate a thorough investigation by either entity. If either the
school/district or police have the benefit of shared information for the purpose of greater
clarity of the issue being investigated, then either entity must weigh the facts and evidence
and determine the appropriate disposition within their own jurisdiction (i.e. the
school/district determines an appropriate disciplinary response or intervention within the
school realm, and the police determine criminal charges in the legal realm). Although
police may also be pursuing a criminal investigation outside of school and have legal
grounds to interview the student at school and/or remove the student from campus, it is
understood that an overlap of investigative authority of school administrators/district
officials and police officers may exist in some cases. To the extent possible, any police
investigations into student conduct will occur off campus; however, in some
circumstances, such as when the student conduct occurs at school, interviews or other
forms of investigation may need to be conducted on campus.
b) Any searches of students or their property by the SLO shall comply with the Department's
Search and Seizure Policy. Absent exigent circumstances, the SLO should make every
reasonable effort to alert a school administrator prior to conducting a search of a
student or their property, including lockers. Whenever possible, the SLO should be
accompanied by a school administrator when conducting searches.
c) This relationship extends to SLOB who may work with the District's school administrative
teams during investigations of student and staff issues. The SLO is an employee of the
police department and is a police officer. In matters involving student criminal offenses,
the SLO may be asked to assist or provide resources to District officials conducting a
school investigation. Interview and search procedure is still governed by the school
administrators, who bear responsibility in that situation. If a school administrator asks a
police officer to conduct a search, the search would still require the presence of a school
administrator, and the SLO would still be an extension of school authority.
d) When school administrators conduct an investigation and determine that a crime that
must be reported by law has been committed, the police are notified. If the police
4
subsequently dispatch an officer to the school, they begin a parallel investigation which
may involve interviews and search procedures. At that point, the police are governed
by their own investigation and are responsible for any interviews and searches they
initiate within the scope of their authority. If an SLO is coincidentally dispatched in
response to a school report of a crime, the SLO is then viewed as a regular police officer
fulfilling the responsibilities of a police investigation and not an extension of school
administrators.
e) SLOs and other police officers assisting schools with investigations, when there is no
probable cause to believe that the student has committed or has knowledge about a
crime, do not assume responsibility just because they are asked to assist. If, during an
investigation, an SLO or assisting officer determines that there is probable cause to
believe that the student has committed or has knowledge about a crime such that a
police investigation should be initiated, even when the school investigation is still
ongoing, the officer would then assume responsibility for any parallel investigative
processes the officer initiates at that point. The District's investigation and the police
investigation would be considered two distinct processes.
VI. Guidelines for Distinguishing Between Disciplinary Misconduct and Criminal
Offenses:
One of the primaryguiding principles in education and the criminal justice system is that mistakes
made by young people should not carry lifelong consequences. Young people should be afforded
multiple opportunitiesto overcome minor violations of law and school policy. The following points
provide direction for determining the sanctions for an alleged violation of the District's Code of
Conduct, California statutes or local ordinances.
a) School administrators have broad latitude in addressing minor violations of the District
Expectations for Student Success Handbook, that may also be violations of the law.
Minor violations of the District Handbook should be addressed by the school
administrators without involvement of the SLO. Involvement of police on school
campuses, beyond the mandatory scope of Cal. Ed. Code § 48902 and Penal Code § 245,
will be at the discretion of District officials/school administrators, in the interest of
the safety of the District's learning communities. In exercising such discretion, District
officials and school administrators will be required to undergo training and understand
and implement District policies for SLO involvement. The District is committed to
providing clear guidance and training to ensure it is able to manage student behaviors at
the local level in most cases where there are minor infractions of the District Handbook
that are also violations of law. Relevant portions of the District Handbook and other
District policies that identify the circumstances under which District employees are
supposed to involve the SLO are included in Appendix 2 to this MOU, which may be
5
updated to reflect changes in those documents without an amendment to this MOU.
b) In certain circumstances, school administrators may be required to report situations to
law enforcement for investigation, including but not limited to a student who has been
subjected to abuse or neglect, victims of several types of crimes, and threats of violence.
c) SLOB are responsible for criminal law issues, not school discipline or poor behavior
issues. Absent a real and immediate threat to student, staff, or public safety, incidents on
District campuses involving public order offenses (including disorderly conduct;
disturbance/disruption of schools or public assembly; trespass; loitering; profanity; and
fighting that does not involve physical injury or a weapon) are considered school discipline
issues to be handled by school administrators, rather than criminal law issues warranting
formal law enforcement intervention (e.g., issuance of a criminal citation, ticket, or
summons, filing of a delinquency petition, referral to a probation officer, or actual arrest).
d) Whenever possible, a student will not be arrested at school when the arrest can be
made effectively elsewhere. An arrest at school is the last resort after all other avenues
have been exhausted, unless the student poses a real and immediate threat to another
student, teacher, or public safety; or a judicial warrant specifically directs the arrest of the
student in a school.
e) If circumstances require an arrest to occur on school grounds, the SLO shall be mindful
of the educational environment and of other students who may witness the arrest.
Whenever possible, arrests should not occur during the lunch hour, before or after school,
or in open areas on a school campus where there is a potential for a large number of
student witnesses.
f) Except in exigent circumstances, school principals/ principals' designees will be advised
prior to an arrest of a student on school grounds. The student's parent or guardian will be
notified as soon as practicable when the student is released to a law enforcement officer.
g) SSFPD officers, including the SLO, will continue to follow state law and City policies when
effectuating arrests.
VII. Student Rights:
a) Except in exigent circumstances, the SLO will inform school administrators prior to
conducting a probable cause search of a student on campus.
b) The SLO will inform school administrators prior to questioning a student on school
grounds, except in situations where the student poses a real and immediate threat
to another student, teacher, or public safety, and such advance notice to school
administrators is not feasible.
c) Absent a real and immediate threat to student, staff, or public safety, physically
invasive searches by a SLO will not be conducted on a student, except as noted above in
D
circumstances in which an SLO is conducting a search pursuant to an independent
criminal investigation.
VIII. Training and Reports on SLO Activity:
a) The SLO will provide an annual report on SLO Program activities. The District,
represented by the Superintendent or his/her designee and the City of South San
Francisco, represented by the City Manager or his/her designee will collaborate on
identifying the information to be included in the annual report.
b) SSFPD currently provides all officers, including SLOB, with training in areas such as cultural
diversity, racial bias prevention, crisis intervention, bias and racial profiling prevention and
principled policing, along with other training. It is SSFPD's intent to continue to prepare
SLOB through training and experience to meet the unique requirements needed for an SLO
to interact appropriately with students and staff in a school setting. Annually, SSFPD staff
and District staff will meet to review SLO training requirements and collaborate on a joint
list of required training for SLOB, recognizing that over time training needs may change.
This joint list of required trainings will be set forth in a side letter that is updated annually.
c) The SLO will receive specialized training regarding the education of students with disabilities,
as identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and/or Section 504
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, to help the SLO understand the unique needs of
students with disabilities.
d) If the District offers trainings or publishes policies regarding non -punitive approaches to
behavioral management in the District, then the parties expect that the SLO will participate
in the trainings and be familiar with the content of the trainings and any such policies. If
the District has implemented any specific programs designed to improve overall school
climate or respond to student behaviors in specific ways, the District may invite the SLO to
participate in any trainings associated with those programs.
e) SSFPD will pay for all SLO training described in this MOU.
IX. SLO Performance and Review
a) In the event that a school/district has concerns regarding the actions of an SLO
relative to this MOU, a representative of the school/district will refer the concerns
initially and in writing to the Chief of Police, after which the Chief of Police and a
District representative will meet and confer. A meeting may also be conducted with all
parties, including the SLO, to mediate and resolve any problems.
b) Notwithstanding the process described in the immediately preceding subsections, the
SSFPD Chief is solely responsible for decisions about the assignment of SLOB, hiring
and continuing employment of SLOs, and supervision and evaluations of the
INA
performance of SLOB. In the event that a school/district concern regarding the
actions of an SLO relative to this MOU is not resolved through the steps described
above, the SSFPD Chief will reassign the SLO and exercise reasonable diligence to identify
and provide a qualified replacement. The SSFPD Chief will consult with the District
Superintendent or designee regarding the assignment of SLOB. In the event that the
District Superintendent or designee has concerns about an SLO assignment, the process
described in this Section IX will apply.
c) SSFPD will maintain methods for members of the public, including District students
and employees, to file complaints against SSFPD officers, including SLOB. Complaints may
be filed anonymously, and may be submitted in writing using forms provided by the SSFPD
or in any other manner. The current versions of the SSFPD's forms are attached hereto as
Appendix 3, and may be updated without an amendment to this MOU. The District has an
independent right to investigate complaints from students, employees or others, to
determine whether a breach of this MOU has occurred, but not to investigate SSFPD
officers, including the SLO, as though they were employees of the District.
X. Program Evaluation, Assessment, and Report:
a) The School Liaison Officer Program will be assessed annually as described in this
Section. The evaluation of the Program will be conducted jointly between the City of
South San Francisco, represented by the City Manager or his/her designee and
the District, represented by the Superintendent or his/her designee. The annual Program
assessment may include, but is not limited to the following areas:
1) Success of established Program goals and objectives.
2) An internal survey of school administration, staff, and student representatives who
have had interactions with law enforcement officers on campus will be conducted.
The number of student representatives whose input will be sought will vary
according to grade level. The survey will be primarily concerned with perceptions
of safety and security relative to the Program. The timing, content, and evaluation
of the survey will be discussed as part of regular meetings (see Section X(b) below).
The City of South San Francisco will be provided with such survey information,
including disaggregated survey responses.
3) An appraisal of areas with opportunities for improvement
A purpose of the assessment is to determine whether the program should continue for the
following school year.
b) The parties also agree to establish a meeting schedule in order to maintain regular and
open communication; to evaluate the effect of this agreement; and to suggest
improvements and adjustments that may be necessary. The City Manager and
Superintendent or their designees will determine who will participate in the meetings. If
E
the meeting participants identify operational changes that require an amendment to this
MOU, then proposed changes will be brought to the City Council and School Board.
c) The City Council and District Board of Trustees will receive a report each MaFE#June/July,
following the end of each school year, beginning in Maw June/July 2023 regarding the
Program. The report will be based on information available from the
concluding school year. A purpose of the report is to provide the City Council and Board
of Trustees with information relevant to their consideration of whether the program
should be renewed for another year. The report will summarize the review described in
this section, including an appraisal of whether the program is achieving its intended
goals and objectives, and any improvements or adjustments to the Program proposed
by the City Manager and Superintendent. The report will be presented to the City
Council and District Board of Trustees as part of their consideration of annual renewal
of this MOU, as described in Section XIII(a).
d) This report should include aggregated data on why police were called to campus, who
called them, demographic data on the students and other people with which
they interacted, and outcomes (including arrests, citations, and other data�.The District
will collect relevant demographic and outcome data for district students from the previous
calendar year. The City of South San Francisco will also track and share data with the
school district regarding the number of student arrests and citations, by gender,
race/ethnicity, and any other relevant data from the previous calendar year.
e) The City of South San Francisco, represented by the City Manager or his/her
designee, and the District will bring proposed amendments to this MOU to the City
Council and District Board of Trustees as necessary and not solely as part of the annual
presentation to the City Council and District Board of Trustees. The District or City Council
can agendize this at any of their respective meetings.
XI. Mutual Indemnity:
The City of South San Francisco, represented by the City Manager or his/her
designee and the District agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless against any and
all third -party losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses and injuries (including
personal injuries or death) arising from or in connection with investigations at school sites,
to the extent that such losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses or injuries arise out
of the negligence of the indemnifying party. In the event of concurrent negligence of the
parties, liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property
would be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative negligence.
E
XII. No Third -Party Beneficiaries:
Nothing in this MOU is intended to or shall confer upon any person other than the parties any
rights or remedies hereunder.
XIII. R e n e w a l a n d Termination:
a) The initial term of this MOU shall commence 30 days after the MOU has been approved
by both the City Council and the District's Board of Trustees, and shall remain in effect
through June 30, 2021 2024. Beginning in Miareh June/July 2023, and each March
June/July thereafter, this MOU shall be reconsidered for renewal by both the City
of South San Francisco and the District for each successive fiscal year, unless
either party gives written notice of termination as set forth in subsection (b) below.
For purposes of this MOU, the fiscal year begins on July 1st and ends on June 30th
each year. In the event that the City Council or Board of Trustees is unable to complete
deliberations on renewal of this MOU prior to June 30th each year, the MOU may be
renewed at any time and will apply to the balance of the fiscal year in which it is renewed.
The District or City Council can at any time agendize this at any of their respective meetings.
b) This MOU may be terminated without cause by either party at any time, by giving prior
written notice at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of such termination, or
may be terminated by mutual agreement of both parties.
c) All notices under this MOU shall be in writing and delivered by email AND U.S. mail,
postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
If to South San Francisco Unified School District:
398 B Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
If to City of South San Francisco:
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of
the dates set forth below:
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of
the dates set forth below:
South San Francisco Unified School District
Date: 4q'Y z•23 '&"' ,
Dr. Shawnterra Moore, Superintendent
Date:
City of South San Francisco
Sharon Ranals, City Manager
11
APPENDIX 1
California Criminal Procedure
December 2020 Update
Laurie L. Levensona and Alex Ricciardullia
Chapter 7. Confessions and Admissions
§ 7:17. Interrogation requirement—Questioning juveniles
The mere fact that a defendant is a minor does not establish that his or her confession is
involuntary.I The test for the voluntariness of a minor's confession is whether, under all the
circumstances, considering age, intelligence, and education, the minor can comprehend the
meaning and effect of a confession.2 In determining whether a juvenile was in "custody" at the
time of an interrogation, the test is not whether a reasonable adult would not feel free to leave,
but whether a reasonable person with the defendant's age and experience would not feel free to
leave.3
A minor must be given Miranda warnings, even if not questioned, when he or she is taken into
temporary custody on the ground that there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she is a
person described in Welfare and Institutions Code § 601 (habitual truancy) or 602 (criminal
behavior of minor).4 Although it is a preferable practice, there is no requirement that the police
obtain a parent's consent before questioning a minor.5 Nor must the police advise a minor of his
or her right to speak with a parent or have them present during questioning.6
However, prior to custodial interrogation, and before the waiver of any Miranda rights, a youth
17 year or younger shall consult with legal counsel in person, by telephone, or by video
conference. The consultation may not be waived.7
Although prior cases suggested otherwise,8 the California Supreme Court held in 2010, that
there is no special rule that a minor's request to see a parent prior to interrogation must be
construed as an invocation of the minor's Fifth Amendment right.9 The federal "totality of the
circumstances" test should be used to determine whether a minor has asserted his or her Miranda
rights. 10 A minor's request to speak to a parent is only one factor to be considered and does not
create a presumption that the minor has asserted his or her Miranda rights.
In 2013, Penal Code § 859.5 was passed that requires the electronic recordation of the entire
custodial interrogation of a minor who is in a fixed place of detention and is suspected of or
accused of committing murder.I I However, the new law has exceptions if the law enforcement
officer conducting the interrogation reasonably believes that electronic recording would disclose
the identity of a confidential informant or jeopardize the safety of the officer or another
individual. 12
Footnotes
1 People v. Davis, 29 Cal. 3d 814, 825, 176 Cal. Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186 (1981).
2 In re John S., 199 Cal. App. 3d 441, 445, 245 Cal. Rptr. 17 (6th Dist. 1988).
3 See Alvarado v. Hickman, 316 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended on denial of reh'g and
reh'g en banc, (Feb. 11, 2003) and rev'd on other grounds, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 158
L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004).
4 Welfare and Institutions Code § 625.
5 People v. Davis, 29 Cal. 3d 814, 825, 176 Cal. Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186 (1981).
6 In re Aven S., 1 Cal. App. 4th 69, 76, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 (1st Dist. 1991); In re John S., 199
Cal. App. 3d 441, 445-446, 245 Cal. Rptr. 17 (6th Dist. 1988).
7 Welf. & Inst. Code, § 625.6(a).
8 See People v. Rivera, 41 Cal. 3d 388, 221 Cal. Rptr. 562, 710 P.2d 362 (1985) (disapproved of
by, People v. Lessie, 47 Cal. 4th 1152, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 223 P.3d 3 (2010)); People v.
Burton, 6 Cal. 3d 375, 99 Cal. Rptr. 1, 491 P.2d 793 (1971) (disapproved of by, People v.
Lessie, 47 Cal. 4th 1152, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 223 P.3d 3 (2010)); In re Aven S., 1 Cal. App.
4th 69, 76, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 (1st Dist. 1991).
9 People v. Lessie, 47 Cal. 4th 1152, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 223 P.3d 3 (2010).
10 People v. Lessie, 47 Cal. 4th 1152, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131, 223 P.3d 3 (2010).
11 Penal Code § 859.5(a); Welfare & Institutions Code § 626.8.
12 Penal Code § 859.5(b).
2
California Criminal Procedure
December 2020 Update
Laurie L. Levensona and Alex Ricciardullia
Chapter 5. Searches and Search Warrants
§ 5:66. Administrative searches—Searches of students
Although the Fourth Amendment applies to searches of students conducted by school authorities,
a search may be conducted without a warrant and without full probable cause.I There must be
"reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has
violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school" and the search must be
reasonable in scope.2 The measures adopted must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the
search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of
the infraction."3 The Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. did not resolve issues concerning whether
individualized suspicion is necessary, whether students have a reasonable expectation of privacy
in their lockers or desks, and whether a higher standard is necessary if the search is conducted at
the behest of law enforcement officials.4 However, in Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding,5
the Supreme Court held that school officials violated a seventh grade girl's Fourth Amendment
rights when they strip-searched her on suspicion that she had prescription -strength ibuprofen.
A California court applied the same reasoning in upholding the search of a group of five or six
students by a school dean who had information that someone in the group had a gun or other
weapon. Given the potential danger to students and staff, a weapons search of each member of
the group was reasonable.6 Similarly, a California court has held that a report that a student has
used a gun after school provides reasonable grounds to search the lockers of other students if the
suspected shooter had access to those lockers and they could hold a weapon.?
In In re Latasha W.,8 a California court held that random metal detector weapon searches of
students do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court based its holding on the rationale that
schools have a substantial need to keep weapons out of schools, metal detector searches are
minimally intrusive, and a system requiring individual suspicion would be impractical and
unworkable.9
The California Supreme Court has held that school officials, including school security officers,
may stop a minor student in order to ask questions or conduct an investigation even in the
absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of a school rule, so long as this
authority is not exercised in an arbitrary, capricious. or harassing manner. 10 However, unless
there is suspicion that the student has a dangerous weapon,I I disruptive behavior alone does not
authorize school officials to search through a student's personal belongings. 12
A school employee may not conduct a body cavity search of a student, nor a visual inspection of
the underclothing, breast, buttocks, or genitalia of a student. 13
3
lComment:
The "special needs" doctrine permits school officials to conduct suspicionless drug testing
if it is not in connection with a criminal investigation. In Veronica School Dist. 47J v.
Acton,14 the Court upheld suspicionless drug testing of school athletes. In Board of
Education v. Earls, l5 the Court expanded suspicionless drug testing to students
participating in any extracurricular activities. In Earls, the Court emphasized that the test
results had not been turned over to any law enforcement authority, nor did they lead to
imposition of discipline. Accordingly, the decision in Earls does not reverse the requirement
of reasonable suspicion when searches are conducted for law enforcement purposes.
Footnotes
1 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, 21 Ed. Law Rep.
1122 (1985) (search of high school student's purse).
2 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 342, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, 21 Ed. Law Rep.
1122 (1985).
3 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 342, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, 21 Ed. Law Rep.
1122 (1985).
4 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720, 21 Ed. Law Rep.
1122 (1985).
5 Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S. Ct. 2633, 174 L. Ed. 2d
354, 245 Ed. Law Rep. 626 (2009).
6 In re Alexander B., 220 Cal. App. 3d 1572, 1576, 270 Cal. Rptr. 342, 60 Ed. Law Rep. 855 (2d
Dist. 1990) (disapproved of by, In re Randy G., 26 Cal. 4th 556, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516, 28 P.3d
239, 155 Ed. Law Rep. 1292 (2001)).
7 In re J.D., 225 Cal. App. 4th 709, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464, 303 Ed. Law Rep. 416 (1st Dist.
2014), as modified on denial of reh'g, (May 14, 2014) and review denied, (Aug. 13, 2014).
8 In re Latasha W., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1524, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 277 (2d Dist.
1998).
9 In re Latasha W., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1524, 1525-1527, 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886, 123 Ed. Law Rep.
277 (2d Dist. 1998).
10 In re Randy G., 26 Cal. 4th 556, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516, 28 P.3d 239, 155 Ed. Law Rep. 1292
(2001) (officers properly detained student and obtained consent to search his bag and conduct a
patdown search).
4
11 See In re K.J., 18 Cal. App. 5th 1123, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380, 350 Ed. Law Rep. 827 (1st Dist.
2018), review denied, (Apr. 11, 2018).
12 In re Lisa G., 125 Cal. App. 4th 801, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 163 (4th Dist. 2004), as modified, (Jan.
10, 2005).
13 Education Code § 49050.
14 Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564, 101
Ed. Law Rep. 37 (1995).
15 Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls,
536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 25599 153 L. Ed. 2d 735, 166 Ed. Law Rep. 79 (2002).
3848237.1
SEARCHES OF STUDENTS
A:J-MY SCHOOL MY RIGHTS KNOW YOUR RIGHTSI)
Do I have the right to refuse to be searched?
YES. You always have a right to refuse a search and you should make clear that a search is taking place over
your objection. But you should not use physical resistance to stop a search.
Can my school search me without my consent?
YES, but only under certain circumstances. First, your school must have a "reasonable suspicion" that
searching you will turn up evidence that you violated a school rule or law. Second, the way your school does
its search should be "reasonable" based on what is being searched for and your age.
What is "reasonable suspicion"?
Unfortunately, there is no exact definition. But a reasonable suspicion should be based on facts specific to
you or your situation. It cannot be based on a rumor, hunch, or curiosity. For example, a teacher cannot ask
to search a bag that looks weird and bulgy for drugs based only on the look of the bag.
Can my school conduct a random search of students in my school?
YES. But these random searches must be based on special, school -wide needs such as ensuring school
safety and should be truly random. A random search cannot be used to target any individual student.
Can my school strip search me?
NO.'
Can my school search, my locker?
SOMETIMES. If your locker is considered personal property, then your school may not search your
locker unless it has a "reasonable suspicion" that it may find something against the law or school rules.
But if your locker is considered school property, then your locker can be searched. Your school must give
you notice that your locker is school property, such as in student handbooks or posted signs on campus.
Can my school use drug -sniffing dogs in my school?
YES, but there are limits. Your school may use dogs to search for drugs on school campus, including
unattended belongings like backpacks. But it must have a "reasonable suspicion" to search those belongings.
If someone at your school tells you to leave the classroom while drug -sniffing dogs conduct a search, you
should try to bring your things with you.
Can my school conduct general metal detector searches?
YES, so long as the students searched are picked randomly. For example, your school may put a metal
detector at the front door to make all students pass through.
But if your school wants to single you out for a metal detector search, it must have a "reasonable suspicion"
that it will find something against the law or school rules.
California Education Code § 49050
SEARCHES OF STUDENTS
A:J-MY SCHOOL MY RIGHTS KNOW YOUR RIGHT
Can my school make me take a random drug test?
USUALLY NOT. Your school may only conduct random drug testing of students who participate in
extracurricular activities. Your school cannot force you to take a drug test under other circumstances.
Do I have the right to refuse a search conducted by a police officer in my school?
YES, you have the right to refuse a search just as you have that right with school officials.
Do regular police officers have to follow the same rules as school officials?
At a minimum, police officers must have "reasonable suspicion" to search you. And, under some
circumstances, they need even more than that.
Can my school use evidence it finds in an illegal search against me in court?
NO. If school officials or police officers illegally search you, they cannot use what they find against you in
court. But your school can use evidence from an illegal search in school disciplinary proceedings.
CLUi
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
I I of CALIFORNIA
Published September 2015 by the ACLU of Califomia
WWW.MYSCHOOLMYRIGHTS.COM
00
INSPECCION
MDs ce�-CCOMr
DELOS ESTUDIANTES
RIGHTS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
Puede mi escuela registrarme sin mi consentimiento?
SI, Pero solo bajo ciertas circunstancias. Tu escuela usualmente debe cumplir con dos requisitos:
Primero, to escuela debe tener la "sospecha razonable" de que al registrarte encontrarin pruebas de que
violaste las reglas de la escuela o la ley. Segundo, la forma tomo la escuela to registra debe estar
"razonablemente" basada en to que estin buscando y en to edad.
LQue es "sospecha razonable"?
Desafortunadamente no existe una definition concreta. Pero, una "sospecha razonable" deberia estar basada
en information especifica de to persona o situation. No puede basarse en rumores, sospechas o curiosidad.
Por ejemplo, un maestro no puede registrar una bolsa que Luce extrana y abultada porque sospecha que tiene
drogas solo por la apariencia de la bolsa.
,&Tengo derecho a negarme a ser registrado?
SI. Siempre tienes derecho a negarte a ser registrado y debes dejar claro que to estin registrando sin to
consentimiento. Pero no debes oponer resistencia Fisica.
,Puede mi escuela registrar al azar a los estudiantes de la escuela?
SI. Pero estas inspecciones al azar deben estar basadas en necesidades especiales y generales de la escuela,
tales tomo garantizar la seguridad escolar, y deben ser realmente al azar. Una inspection al azar no puede ser
usada para registrar a un estudiante en particular.
Puede mi escuela registrarme desnudo?
NO:
jPuede mi escuela registrar mi casillero?
DEPENDE. Si to casillero se considera propiedad personal, to escuela no puede registrarlo a menos que
tengan la "sospecha razonable" de que encontrarin algo que viola la ley o las reglas escolares.
Pero si to casillero se considera propiedad escolar puede ser registrado. Tu escuela debe notificarte que el
casillero se considera propiedad escolar a traves, por ejemplo, del manual del estudiante o a traves de
letreros desplegados en el campus.
,Puede mi escuela usar perros rastreadores de drogas?
SI, pero existen limites. Tu escuela puede usar perros para olfatear drogas en el campus escolar, incluyendo
pertenencias desatendidas, tales tomo mochilas. Pero deben tener una "sospecha razonable" para registrar
estas pertenencias.
Si alguien en to escuela to dice que salgas del aula mientras los perros rastreadores de drogas inspeccionan el
salon, debes tratar de llevar contigo tus pertenencias.
10
INSPICCION DE LOS ESTUDIANTES
<MY SCHOOL MY RIGHTS KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
CONTINUACI6N
4Puede mi escuela realizar inspecciones generales con detectores de metales?
SI, siempre y cuando los estudiantes sean registrados al azar. Por ejemplo, to escuela puede instalar un
detector de metales en la entrada principal para que todos los estudiantes pasen por el. Pero si to escuela
solo to pide a ti que pases por el detector de metales, deben tener una "sospecha razonable" de que
encontraran algo que viola la ley o las reglas escolares.
ZPuede mi escuela obligarme a tomar una prueba aleatoria para detectar
drogas?
USUALMENTE NO. Tu escuela solo puede realizar pruebas aleatorias para detectar drogas si los
estudiantes participan en actividades extracurriculaxes. Tu escuela no puede obligarte a tomar un examen
para detectar drogas bajo ninguna otra circunstancia.
ZDeben los oficiales de policia obedecer las mismas reglas que los funcionarios
escolares?
ES COMPLICADO. Aplican reglas distintas si el oficial esti asignado al campus permanentemente o si
trabaja con los funcionarios escolares.
Pero como minimo, los oficiales de policia deben tener una "sospecha razonable" para registrarte. Bajo
dertas circunstancias necesitan incluso anis que eso.
jengo derecho a negarme a ser registrado por un oficial de policia en mi
escuela?
Si, tienes el mismo derecho a negarte a ser registrado que dens con los funcionarios escolares.
,&Puede mi escuela usar la evidencia encontrada durante una inspeccion ilegal
en mi contra en los tribunales?
NO. Si los funcionarios escolares u oficiales de policia to registran ilegalmente, no pueden usar to que
encuentran en to contra en los tribunales. Pero to escuela puede usar la evidencia encontrada durante una
inspeccion Regal en sus procesos disciplinarios.
MY SCH(
MY RIGH
• KNOW YOUR B6
MACLU
Published September 2015 by the ACLU of California
WWW.MYSCHOOLMYRIGHTS.COM
C6digo de Educaci6n de California § 49050
APPENDIX 2
Non -Mandatory calls to SSFPD, SBPD, DCPD
Involvement of police on school campuses, beyond the mandatory scope of CA Ed. Code
48902 and Penal Code 4 245 is considered at the discretion of our site/district administrators in
the interest of the safety of our learning communities.
Examples of important safety considerations that may involve consultation or requests for the
presence of police are as follows:
• Gaining a better understanding/more informed understanding of a student's
circumstances outside of school that may be contributing to problem behaviors and/or
contributions to community safety.
• Support is needed when doing home visits/welfare checks for truancy cases and
possible neglect circumstances, for the safety of all children and the investigating
administrators and staff.
• Addressing gang affiliation, per AR 5136 and BP 5136
• Provide guidance on the dangers of gang membership, per AR 5136
• Pro -active investigation of suspected involvement with drug trade on campus, but
evidence of direct crime has not yet been established.
• Investigation of report of dangerous object, explosive device, or other implements/items
stored or suspected to be stored in a location on/off campus (even though crime has not
yet been committed)
• Reasonable suspicion that a student or visitor on campus may be in possession of a
weapon/dangerous object on campus, or on the way to/from campus.
• Home visit to welfare check students that have been truant or numerous unexcused
absences, or indicators of neglect have been observed.
• Assistance with having pro -active conversations with students engaged in dangerous
behavior/decision-making and/or contributing to behavior that puts others in the
community at risk of harm.
• Parents also request police intervention for certain student behaviors, particularly when
at -school and at-home conduct are related and/or rooted in issues manifesting in
common behavior symptoms. These requests range from asking officers to have a
conversation with a student, to requests for home visits, and/or for informational
purposes.
Assistance with improving/refining emergency response procedures and emergency
preparedness.
• Participate in student activities and visible on campus for PBIS spirit days, Student
Council Activities, Family Academic Nights, so as to build positive relationships with
staff, students and families.
• Assist with event supervision for the safety of our students, staff, and families. Large
gatherings (i.e. SSFHS and ECHS bell games with well over 1000-2000 attendees)
benefit from the protection of assisted supervision, particularly when members of the
public, including those not associated with our schools, seek to attend our events.
Additional Reference: Requirements of CA Education Code § 48902 (Fagen, Friedman & Fullfrost)
y wo c a- o a ( a _5 m a 1-:< M La Z Z w i- 0 w >.
E m o awwi ow = �� EY :5 UJ Q >pm
M E a a `m w a 0 9 Q U=>_� W
0 o m o a o a o — �OSuiwC9QMQw�Z
p ai � Pi c E= c :2,5 a) m= N 01=1-C) Oa
y o o'a R m o�3 dv a ZV z LU CL1-
0 0 o.>.a m a� 4) n••rn_ Q c a y o Qw�-4Z>plui0gru"
T CL O)fA mp m -a •o m mos o_w C7 C> -70Z W COZLU
s aci'> > m of c o a3 E c6 1 -OV �a��u E:zm
E E a E o a CL e w my o w ZILZpZ W WF - V - Q
o m E cmi o m.0 E S Q -1 o0 ood m c g wVULLO=Z0 u~7
o E o t w co a) �, w 0- LL,
�o m m o•- �a CD '= «- v o away Waw_
d c a n o m c 3 o m a o— E c y Z 4 N Z Z N
y c o ns m a v o Co c w 00 w ZZ aamQ�
rows 3a E o S-0 w E o 0 o w E� my C)�=FZLL WQOW HZc++
c o a`� E a o m a CL:E o c oto a l-
m o c m rn�:... 06 w m 02— c= a3� �� C1 >--1- �j- W
E O o m o c w. m w E c o• •-m — M Z a�, w ,L 9
m a E 0 E w> CL rnv v d o E o 0 0> m} W H _ = W u.
m co r° o 0 o c c o c ns �• a '� Ln m Z a >- C9 Z 1- M O f -
p ov 3 y �_ m w to 0 o c E � Na�Cry V=W OC7fn
m rn —� c 3 �a Dat Cooc o�w �`aci OWOUaWZl:Gov0W
Q ai m•�.� c = Q.>- a: ( c E E p W w C9w aOZ1-�
d U �= B 3 m o c m- rnnQ� m =1L Z�Q�Z�}wOH
v v d a tM0 ccm oo m� c 8 c oY a o cmiw — �C3:5 tL�ZZ
w w a y .� m c c m c c co _ U o o m e Q' W O== a 0 U 1 p
c� c v o m U �= E m ns 0) E 0= _ m QQ
i m c � =»mac. cwn o °' rn E c 0—} 3 c w o 3 r—Ca a: m = �- w LLI W 0 F W y W >-
�-< a� o o w._ ca cu c13 m m _ c� to o Hw< V 1-JZU
m a m V US.� oa o'cc 2 o) Ey E•m rn c o'er c oAu n� Ea >pZR'pQp2lwc Ca') W wW
m U O) m (� O
y� St c �'� o m 3 E m•c �� y E ca aLU W W �D�F c. C9 C7
O T.c•c C v v cLi E o E 0CL� c `r' o f m app �� m > J J O�lOQLU Oww�mU)
CA�Cn 1•- Q ��.L.. C UW U to cu 8 d.0 U 8 � �` coU >-aCU IL CLF=-01=--?�LL�
J
Z
O
ai
U
z
�
LL o
M
LL
s
^
Q
x
c
0
P-
w
c
Z
4
w
S
J
LL
c
a
0
O
3
IL
s
m
z
LU
te
0325
-
c7
_Z
�
o
_
�
s
m
ILW
2
a
O
W
W
U
5F
e
i
W
g
o
o
e
t
s
e
o
tii
a
z
�
c
d2
6
C
•r•
"
i
O O
2
=
Z
O
W
H
H
y wo c a- o a ( a _5 m a 1-:< M La Z Z w i- 0 w >.
E m o awwi ow = �� EY :5 UJ Q >pm
M E a a `m w a 0 9 Q U=>_� W
0 o m o a o a o — �OSuiwC9QMQw�Z
p ai � Pi c E= c :2,5 a) m= N 01=1-C) Oa
y o o'a R m o�3 dv a ZV z LU CL1-
0 0 o.>.a m a� 4) n••rn_ Q c a y o Qw�-4Z>plui0gru"
T CL O)fA mp m -a •o m mos o_w C7 C> -70Z W COZLU
s aci'> > m of c o a3 E c6 1 -OV �a��u E:zm
E E a E o a CL e w my o w ZILZpZ W WF - V - Q
o m E cmi o m.0 E S Q -1 o0 ood m c g wVULLO=Z0 u~7
o E o t w co a) �, w 0- LL,
�o m m o•- �a CD '= «- v o away Waw_
d c a n o m c 3 o m a o— E c y Z 4 N Z Z N
y c o ns m a v o Co c w 00 w ZZ aamQ�
rows 3a E o S-0 w E o 0 o w E� my C)�=FZLL WQOW HZc++
c o a`� E a o m a CL:E o c oto a l-
m o c m rn�:... 06 w m 02— c= a3� �� C1 >--1- �j- W
E O o m o c w. m w E c o• •-m — M Z a�, w ,L 9
m a E 0 E w> CL rnv v d o E o 0 0> m} W H _ = W u.
m co r° o 0 o c c o c ns �• a '� Ln m Z a >- C9 Z 1- M O f -
p ov 3 y �_ m w to 0 o c E � Na�Cry V=W OC7fn
m rn —� c 3 �a Dat Cooc o�w �`aci OWOUaWZl:Gov0W
Q ai m•�.� c = Q.>- a: ( c E E p W w C9w aOZ1-�
d U �= B 3 m o c m- rnnQ� m =1L Z�Q�Z�}wOH
v v d a tM0 ccm oo m� c 8 c oY a o cmiw — �C3:5 tL�ZZ
w w a y .� m c c m c c co _ U o o m e Q' W O== a 0 U 1 p
c� c v o m U �= E m ns 0) E 0= _ m QQ
i m c � =»mac. cwn o °' rn E c 0—} 3 c w o 3 r—Ca a: m = �- w LLI W 0 F W y W >-
�-< a� o o w._ ca cu c13 m m _ c� to o Hw< V 1-JZU
m a m V US.� oa o'cc 2 o) Ey E•m rn c o'er c oAu n� Ea >pZR'pQp2lwc Ca') W wW
m U O) m (� O
y� St c �'� o m 3 E m•c �� y E ca aLU W W �D�F c. C9 C7
O T.c•c C v v cLi E o E 0CL� c `r' o f m app �� m > J J O�lOQLU Oww�mU)
CA�Cn 1•- Q ��.L.. C UW U to cu 8 d.0 U 8 � �` coU >-aCU IL CLF=-01=--?�LL�
Return Address
Place
Stamp
Here
Chief of Police
South San Francisco Police Department
1 Chestnut Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONFIDENTIAL
m
W
W
o0
Q
U
O
W
�
U
m
Q
W
p
W
Q
10
0
J
U
N
?_I.-
W
t 0
O
5
J
N
~a
m s
U
w w
O
Wrail
p
0
'00 lWL
Z U
Z
NLU
W
p
w
Z
E
O
O
p
C
Z
W
O N
~
_!
v~i o
I j
a ui
N
N
a z
o
a
O o
o w
z
LU
In
p
0 ca
0
U =
wm
Z J
W
[L Q O
LL
Q
WWJ
W
•0 a0
IW- N
Q Q
g
U
N
w p
p Q
w
LU
U
L)
O
p
-O
} O
LU C U
WI
LL
w
O O
OO
p
C -�
0
Z
LU
Z
?
O
j
w W
C7 0
y W
N
Z
U
? W Q
W N
Q
O J
Z LL
U
U
� � O
� W
LU
CU
w
W n
w
¢ O
W
C3 =
U N
a3
J U
QO W�
=,N W
O Z
w
Z
p O
d
O
U Z
}
W COQ
-0
W Z 0
wR U
W CQ'J
p
p
W Z n
Ix r
V
Ix
Q
W W
W
J
0 ON
a
LL W
z
O F
K
Z
Z p
LU
Cl W
W
2 p
W
O
Z =
O p
U N O
6
w Z
¢
LL
Uw
LU it
pZ
U
0
of
E
iIL
-C
j Z
�
pp2
Z
CI -
u
Z
O
y Z
p
w
'0 O N O
�0' •p La •p cts
c
d r6
N
•� O
W W W W W W a y L -
y C C O W
OCF
m
min N
o a) 0
o 0
E N "-0
ra
O
CO E c
m
O LU
W w a o= L o
U c c N
•� a)
O, a) - N CO
C U 0
O O O=
0 C
LL W S A W W M
W
a) OG acD
N-0
p a) a)
p. `� m
O>> V C [L
W O U W
O
U aj
-0
U U
m U
o o
m a) m [O N >' G d Cn
>o==a) E .� `�a'v,
.7 Q d to
Q H <0 � J O O
aa+3c�w a�"w c to
a
ami v c >'
o o m w -coo a s w ma a m o
o E rn o r�u '�
O
0
►- v~i rn F z w coLU- a s Q
a O W a w 0
N O C
a3 •a) co M
a O. E
Cp 9
O
m LU =3
V J Z .Zp w Q F p Z
8
•C V
N 2
N 0 7
N U
p W C
co 0
C, c ? n Z 0 a) m
y m o m U rn O
a)
C7
Q a L) a z p y W
V d o w W Q W p p
.0
c
y
G) Co
CC -p U
•E
> m 0 0 "U .0
O
.c +: M� CO p
a
m
C
W 6 OC U C y O Z U
>
d p h S
�-0 _a) •.
fn
E
Cal W
Lou
Il
2'0
N 2 -CO 16
•C` 2 E a a) C Lo m iA a
C m
J 2 N W O W CL d'
m
CA
EE
_
O
ccco
N CT 0 U
wE m0Q OL Ea)0
N U M
LO c
N
�s s�Z' >0oa
LU
m .
a—N)
N C0.7 a s
m
N 2
o f a a)
aa) a) C .0 1,E0
m Eo "in
m m
G.
Q W Q? U W n:
LLj
a w
o
v m
c c m
E
c o
v o a
U N
.0
aI V G 'L
E
•N
�_ C •l0 N N .Q m •a) rA a) N
U
•0 .O
C U
W 0 a w 5 W y V
CY
O.
U d
0
a)LU
U D U
Ca N U •O c
@ G
0 Z Q 0 a yX Q 2 W Vr
N
U
' V
- -U o
rn m E U
N N
N N O. m V C6 >+ y
0
E O
•�
U 4 2 a V W U a U 0 Q
cm
N
O U
IL y N
•O N
N
7 0 0 Ca 2
m E U E in
7 m E c a)
CT 7 N .O
O c a) N c
O a .O N .O O
'U
V w W -j 0 a w H
W 7 F F Q Z Q y W N
w
CD o> c
`-' O1 cu Z5 3
a) c a ' v a- E CL o U-
m m
—
Zo o `-'
0
Q
C LL-
o
U a
O •O C) a)
ci G. U(a(D y a U c O m
N O
m
. •5
w
w U Q m z d O d O z W
r')
N
C a r°)n
•p 0 C O U C O
ff
n.0
a Z= W Q W y W a: m
O
E C CO
m cn
N E
m
.� rri
S E m
N N
CD 216 =° es m ,N
a
m a
a o o z e z o w W
C ami w
as>
ami o C
> Co
c Co A. v a
a a
.52
4: = m w 2 c m
ma a)@ E
E a)
o o
U a)
Z
¢ w LU
wUQMvWr s
U3
j
o U o
Z a) m
m o o m ._
o c o m j c 0 d c `o a) o "�
�o d
'
`aoi
o w •� w o a
W
O �-
Q C!) o
n c p E
U 8 m E.
8 55 D m Ck v v
H
U�
a w d a 0 w o L) Mix
Return Address
Chief of Police
South San Francisco Police Department
1 Chestnut Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONFIDENTIAL