San Francisco's Public Defender's Office released video footage on Thursday, November 12, and filed a formal complaint with the city's police watchdog, alleging that San Francisco police officers in unmarked vehicles pursued a 56-year-old man on an electric scooter, tackled him, and caused him to fatally strike a bus shelter pole — a version of events the office says the police department never disclosed in its public account of the death.
Source: San Francisco Public Defender's Office
The man, Edwin Adams, died on October 12 after the incident near the intersection of Eighth and Mission streets in the city's South of Market neighbourhood, according to the Public Defender's Office and the San Francisco Medical Examiner's Office, which identified him as a 56-year-old Contra Costa County resident. Thursday's footage release and complaint are the first time his lawyers have publicly laid out, with video, their allegation that a police tackle immediately preceded the fatal collision.
In its initial public comments, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) said Adams "collided with a street fixture and suffered injury" during a pursuit and later died in hospital, and that officers had been trying to arrest him because he had an outstanding warrant. The department did not mention any tackle, and it has not confirmed which vehicles were involved, according to local reporting by Mission Local and the San Francisco Chronicle.
A warrant over an ankle monitor, lawyers say
According to the Public Defender's Office, the warrant was a Sheriff's Affidavit Warrant — known as a SAW — issued over an allegation that Adams had not properly charged his electronic ankle monitor. Adams was on pretrial electronic monitoring while facing nonviolent drug charges, and his lawyers say the monitor allegation was a nonviolent, administrative matter that he never had the chance to challenge in court. Superior Court records cited by Mission Local show the warrant was issued on October 10, less than a week before the chase. Adams had no other warrants, his lawyers say, and his attorney, Deputy Public Defender Meenha Lee, says she learned a SAW had been issued only after his death.
Three witnesses told Mission Local that a man who appeared to be a plainclothes officer got out of a grey Ford Fusion that had been following Adams and tackled him off the scooter into a bus shelter, where his head struck a metal pole. The Chronicle reported that an unmarked grey Ford was at the scene. Police Chief Derrick Lew has said officials are investigating whether the use of force caused Adams's death, and the District Attorney's independent investigators were notified, as required under the city's agreement for deaths in custody and force incidents that send a person to hospital.
The complaint to the Department of Police Accountability alleges three areas of misconduct: (1) an unlawful pursuit, citing SFPD's pursuit policy, Department General Order 5.05, which the Public Defender's Office says limits vehicle pursuits to cases involving at least reasonable suspicion of a felony or a violent misdemeanour; (2) excessive force, citing General Order 5.01, which requires force to be objectively reasonable — the office says tackling a helmetless man on a scooter endangered Adams, the officer and the public; and (3) dishonesty, citing conduct rules in General Order 2.01, over a public statement that described a collision with a street fixture without mentioning the police actions that preceded it. These are allegations in a complaint; the watchdog has not announced findings.
"Police chose to pursue Mr. Adams in multiple unmarked vehicles and then violently tackle him from his scooter," said Zac Dillon, a senior policy analyst with the Public Defender's Office Integrity team. "SFPD's public account of this incident was sparse and misleading, omitting the police actions that immediately preceded the collision, which led to Mr. Adams's death." Public Defender Mano Raju said high-speed pursuits of people on electric scooters "can have deadly consequences" and should not be used over situations that could be resolved without a dangerous chase. Lee, Adams's attorney, said: "Mr. Adams was a father and a brother, and his family is grieving his untimely death."
Why a monitor warrant became a fatal chase is now the central question
The case has turned into a wider argument about how low-level supervision warrants are enforced in San Francisco. The Sheriff's Department administers pretrial electronic monitoring and issues SAWs, and the Public Defender's Office says it has repeatedly asked the Sheriff's Department to notify defence lawyers when a SAW is issued against a client — a notification it says the department promptly gives to the District Attorney's Office but has refused to give to the Public Defender. "Had our office been notified of the sheriff warrant, we could have helped him resolve the issue," Lee said. The Sheriff's Department and SFPD responses to Thursday's complaint were not included in the Public Defender's release.
Police pursuits are a live policy debate in California cities because the risk calculus is stark: a chase begun over a warrant or a traffic matter can end in a death within seconds, which is why SFPD's own general order restricts when officers may start a vehicle pursuit at all. Whether an electric scooter counts the same way, and whether the officers who followed Adams had the suspicion the policy requires, are questions the complaint now puts before the Department of Police Accountability. For residents of the South of Market and other dense neighbourhoods — including the city's large immigrant and Punjabi communities who rely on city streets, buses and scooters daily — the case is being watched as a test of how transparent the department must be when its first public account of a death is later challenged with video.
What happens next: the Department of Police Accountability is being asked to open a full investigation and initiate discipline against the officers involved; the District Attorney's office investigation into whether force caused the death, first reported in late October, remains the separate criminal-side review; and the Public Defender's Office says it will keep pressing for the Sheriff's Department to notify defence counsel when monitor warrants are issued. Awaaz Punjab will update this story if SFPD or the Sheriff's Department respond to the complaint.