City Council forced to agree with grand jury: police oversight commission still can't do its job six years after voter mandate

The San Diego City Council voted 5-1 on Tuesday to agree with a grand jury's findings that the city's voter-mandated police oversight commission still cannot independently investigate officer misconduct complaints — nearly six years after 75 percent of voters approved Measure B creating the body.

The council had initially planned to agree only in part with the grand jury's findings but reversed course during the Nov. 10 meeting. Councilmember Jennifer Campbell cast the lone no vote and did not speak during the discussion.

The 2025-2026 San Diego County Grand Jury report, titled "San Diego Commission on Police Practices," found that the commission "lacks many of the capabilities required to meet the obligations mandated by Measure B" and "lacks adequate permanent staff to carry out mandated independent investigations."

The grand jury also found the commission "lacks access to complete complaint data, which reduces its effectiveness" and "cannot reliably and effectively review and comment on significant cases."

According to KPBS, the commission is still unable to conduct independent investigations because its permanent operating procedures remain subject to negotiations between Mayor Todd Gloria and the San Diego Police Officers Association — the union representing sworn officers. Until those talks conclude, the commission operates under interim rules rather than the full authority voters intended.

The commission lacked a quorum for years and cycled through several leadership changes before hiring its current executive director in January. The Internal Affairs Unit shares documents with the commission through a shared Google Drive but does not grant independent access to the software where investigation files are stored.

The city's proposed response, prepared by the Independent Budget Analyst's office, acknowledged that IAPro — the software used for complaint investigations — "contains CLETS-derived information" from criminal justice databases that cannot be shared under state law. The response also noted the software "cannot filter out information state law deems confidential."

Council President Sean Elo-Rivera questioned the department's reluctance to explore alternative systems, pointing to the police department's pursuit of other technologies.

"Our police department wants to be able to use license plate readers to track people across the city, wants to bring in AI to help write reports," Elo-Rivera said. "You name it, and SDPD is going after it. And we haven't even looked to see whether or not there's a different database that could provide the access that the CPP is asking for."

The grand jury's five recommendations included urging the council to finalize meet-and-confer negotiations with the police union and two other city employee unions, budget for additional CPP investigators and legal staff, and require the police department to share access to its complaint database.

The city's responses are due to the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court by November 20.