San Francisco City Hall (Photo: Evan Symon for California Globe)
Greenberg: The Case for Canceling the SFPD’s No-Mugshot Policy Now
The no-mugshot policy fosters perceptions of secrecy that erode confidence
By Richie Greenberg, May 8, 2025 6:00 am
In July 2020, the San Francisco Police Department under long-serving Chief William Scott, implemented a controversial “no booking photos” policy restricting the release of most mug shots, citing concerns about “racial bias and stereotypes”, particularly against Black and brown individuals.
Born out of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement’s peak influence following George Floyd’s killing in that same year, this SFPD policy limits photo releases to cases of imminent danger or public safety needs while requiring approval from the SFPD’s public relations team. While intended to address alleged “systemic bias”, it today is a relic of BLM’s 2020 momentum that instead undermines public trust, hinders safety, and fails to tackle root causes of racial disparities. With Chief Scott announcing his departure on May 7, 2025, to pursue a new opportunity, the time to cancel this flawed policy is now, as the SFPD transitions to new leadership under interim Chief Paul Yep in a few weeks.
Transparency is a part of the foundation of public trust in law enforcement. The no-mugshot policy, by withholding factual arrestee images, instead fosters perceptions of secrecy that erode confidence. Mug shots enable community oversight, ensuring accountability for police actions. When restricted, residents may suspect the SFPD is shielding individuals or avoiding scrutiny, especially in high-profile cases. The policy’s discretionary exceptions—requiring public relations approval—raise concerns about politically motivated decisions, fueling distrust in a city where progressive values demand openness.
As a leftover from BLM’s 2020 push, the policy reflects a knee-jerk response to protests rather than a sustainable solution. Adopted as a department notice rather than a codified Department General Order, the policy lacks permanence and clarity, appearing as a symbolic gesture to deflect criticism during a then-turbulent time. Chief Scott’s announced departure offers a critical opportunity to address this trust deficit: Interim Chief Yep can restore transparency by canceling the policy, signaling a commitment to openness under new leadership. Reinstating mug shot releases would rebuild community faith, countering perceptions of secrecy rooted in the policy’s BLM-era origins.
The policy compromises overall public safety by limiting the community’s ability to identify perpetrators. Mug shots are vital for enlisting the public assistance in locating suspects and accomplices particularly for ongoing threats or repeat offenders; withholding most mug shots obscures patterns residents could help address through tips.
This BLM-inspired policy prioritizes image suppression over practical safety. Chief Scott’s tenure saw innovations like ALPR cameras and drones, reducing crimes like auto burglaries, but the mug shot restriction undermines these efforts by limiting community engagement. With Scott stepping down and the SFPD down over 500 officers, straining response times, interim Chief Yep can leverage this transition to cancel the policy. Restoring mug shots as a public safety tool would empower residents, aligning with Yep’s community-focused background as a Chinatown native.
Defenders of the policy claim bias. A universal release policy, however, publishing every adult’s mug shot regardless of race, sex, or appearance, would eliminate selective bias. If Black individuals are 15% of arrests, their mug shots would reflect that proportion, neutralizing overrepresentation claims, rather than hiding data.
Proponents argue the policy protects the presumption of innocence, as only 60% of California felony arrests lead to convictions (2020 DOJ data). However, this applies to all arrestees. Universal releases, while resource-intensive, could be streamlined through public databases, ensuring efficiency.
The SFPD should release data on mug shots and engage the public to shape a transparent, effective approach, finally moving beyond BLM-era symbolism.
- Greenberg: No, Mayor Lurie, Twitter Didn’t Cause San Francisco’s Woes - May 22, 2025
- Greenberg: Open Letter to SF City Hall over Drug Addiction Fiasco - May 20, 2025
- Greenberg: Kamala’s Defeat – We Dodged A Bullet - May 17, 2025
RELATED ARTICLES
-
November 23, 2021 -
December 12, 2018 -
September 10, 2018
BLM is a weapon in the hands of the Democrats. No mug shots is an attempt to keep the public ignorant of the war that is being conducted against them.
Prima Facie evidence that members of a law enforcement agency are no longer interested in promoting its charter purpose.
Compare: Malfeasance of Office.
I had NO idea that they stopped mugshots in 2022! I don’t think anyone can argue with any of the the statements FOR reinstating mugshots. Very well written.
Until the mid to late 1990’s not only mugshots were available but accurate descriptions of all suspects of crimes. But as the vast majorly or perps were either black, 10% of the City population at the time, or Hispanic, 15% of the City population, the media stopped giving descriptions and rarely showed mugshots. Except after people had been convicted.
So everyone who was paying attention just assumed the perps were either black or Hispanic. Which was true 80% to 90% of the time.
Fast forward 15/20 years and the Hispanic gangs in places like the Mission are long gone. Destroyed by the anti-gang unit. The black population is now down to 5%, but the perps in serious crimes especially murders are now around 80% to 90% black. And if its a mugging or a random attack its 70% to 80% probability the perp is black. Back in the 1980’s the perp was just as likely to be white as any other race.
So thats why the black SFPD chief stopped with mugshots. Because it was mostly blacks getting their photos taken. Even with the very pro criminal Dept of Police Accountability trying to make it a careering ended offence for SFPD officers to arrest “too many” blacks. Arresting Whites or Asians was never a problem for the DPA. Quite separate from a dysfunctional City DA’s office and a Public Defenders Office that had utter contempt for the rights of crime victims to get justice. The same Public Defenders Office whose head died in a illegal-drug fueled OD death.
Part of the back story is that the black population of SF has fallen from over 15% to less than 5% in the last few decades. Mostly due to black families moving out looking for better schools for their kids and better homes for themselves. The only black demographic that did not move was those in public housing. Around one third of the black population of the City lives in public housing. Taking up 50% of all public housing units.
The big clear out of the small number of career criminals living in public housing back in the 1990’s has slowly being undone over the last few decades as a new generation of criminals blight public housing. The habitual criminals are less than 10% of those living in public housing but they account for the majority of crime in the City. Especially petty crime. The rest come from the East Bay. Especially around Vallejo. Where SF’s criminals living in public housing were dumped back in the 1990’s
And thats why there were no mugshots in SF.
I was going to write my own comment, but you said everything I had in mind, and a lot more, and did it better and more thoroughly than I would have, so thanks. I will only had that if the SFPD and others are worried about too many mugshots of blacks, it’s only because so many of the people committing crimes are black. That is NOT meant as a smear of black folks in general, not at all, most of whom I am certain are as fed up with the crime as anyone else. It’s a minority of a minority who do the crimes. I am also exasperated with the entire justice system being, for many years now, more concerned about the rights of criminals rather than their victims. We all know that many people get away with crime after crime because of concern about those accused of a crime. It’s really very much out of balance.