[chrsjxn]

SFPD had a 6% clearance rate for all property crimes in 2020, with reports that it got lower since [1].

There are a lot of anecdotes, occasionally newsworthy, about SFPD watching theft happen and doing nothing about it [2]. SFPD also appears to have refused to assist the DA in arrests related to theft rings for political reasons [3].

It's noteworthy that SFPD chose to pursue such broad surveillance access for a protest of police violence. Their past record on theft and vandalism is an exceptionally flimsy justification.

[1]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/The-state-of-the-SFPD... [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-po... [3]: https://sfist.com/2022/05/23/report-sfpd-refused-to-particip...

[shuckles]

SFPD’s staffing levels are also at historic lows (and much lower than UN averages) while the work required to investigate and prosecute crimes has increased due to the professionalization of policing (a lot more TPS reports but also valuable constraints on autonomy). Perceived aggregate activity being down isn’t particularly surprising.

The U-Haul stunt was largely just a stunt. It was later revealed the DA’s office just didn’t get their paperwork right to organize evidence transport.

[chrsjxn]

I feel like that just makes it worse (though I didn't know about the DA's office messing up the paperwork).

Let's assume that understaffing and additional work required to close cases are the main causes for the low clearance rates. Monitoring a legal protest in case crimes are committed seems profoundly wasteful, compared to working to resolve crimes that actually happened.

I don't envy SFPD. Trying to reduce crime in SF seems like a huge challenge that they are poorly equipped to solve, for many reasons. But the original comment in this thread is trying to justify surveillance here as preventing possible property crimes, and that just makes no sense to me.