Police are frequently called upon to testify in criminal cases, and their testimonies are regarded as highly credible since it is their sworn duty to uphold the law. San Francisco's Department of Police Accountability shows that nearly 93% of the allegations they received against #police in 2021 did not reveal misconduct. So when an officer's history suggests that they may not be a trustworthy witness, how can justice be served?

This is the problem former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin sought to address when he announced in June 2020 that the DA's office would no longer file charges based solely on the testimony of so-called "problem cops." A "problem cop" is a police officer with a proven history of racial bias or other forms of misconduct. 

As Boudin explained at the time, "this directive ensures that members of the public are not wrongly or unfairly accused by officers whom we know have displayed the kind of misconduct that permanently damages their credibility or the trust we place in them."

 A "Trial Integrity Unit" within the DA's office was tasked with compiling and regularly updating a list of police officers who have documented histories of misconduct. Boudin stated that his office would not pursue charges in cases that relied solely upon the testimony of one of the "problem cops" on this list. Cases with other evidence, such as corroborating other individuals' testimonies, would still be pursued as usual.

While Boudin was recalled in 2022, some advocates of his policy consider it a crucial step toward police accountability. They believe that officers who have been found guilty of misconduct should not be considered credible witnesses. To prevent wrongful convictions, suspects should not be prosecuted based on the testimonies of these "#ProblemCops."

Critics of the policy believe that it errs too much on the side of favoring suspects. Officers are capable of making mistakes and misbehaving, they say, but their entire track record must be taken into account. They consider it unreasonable to automatically invalidate officers' testimonies based on past situations unrelated to the case at hand.

The question up for debate: Should the San Francisco District Attorney throw out charges that are based on the testimony of problem cops?