When should San Francisco police officers bring in certified language interpreters in their dealings with people who don’t speak English well? A new city policy directs officers to look for signs when an interpreter is needed, while also giving police more flexibility to use family members, digital translation tools, or other uncertified interpreters in some situations.
The San Francisco Police Commission voted April 1 to advance the update to the city’s nearly 20-year-old language access policy. The new policy now heads to the San Francisco Police Officers’ Association for consideration before a final vote by the commission. The association didn’t reply to our request for comment.
Federal and local laws require police to provide language service to people who don’t speak English well. When police can’t communicate with people who speak limited English or rely on uncertified interpreters, victims may not seek help, and officers could misunderstand testimony, derailing or compromising investigations.
In 2024, the Department of Justice pushed several local agencies nationwide to fix their language access policies. In San Francisco, the city updated its original 2001 ordinance in 2024, adding Vietnamese as the fourth language it must translate into English, along with Chinese, Spanish and Filipino. The police department developed its own policy in 2007, updating it now to provide more clarity.
Nearly 20% of San Franciscans don’t speak English well and use another language at home, according to U.S. Census data. Beyond residents, the city also has a sizable tourist population. The police department hoped to move forward with the updated policy to give officers more flexibility to use uncertified interpreters for encounters they decide aren’t related to police work.
But community advocates warned the commissioners not to rush the process. They worried that the update rolls back progress from the 2007 policy by loosening restrictions and softening requirements into recommendations.
“When police are unable to communicate clearly with people with limited English skills, it’s easy to create misunderstandings, delays, and even unnecessary conflict,” community member Anne Zhang told the commission through a Cantonese-speaking social worker.
While community members spoke in Cantonese and Spanish, no interpreter was there at the meeting, illustrating the challenge of having certified interpreters on hand when needed. Jose Ng, with Chinese for Affirmative Action, explained that they learned about the meeting late and missed the 48-hour request window for interpretation.
Though a majority of the commission voted to advance the policy that night, some commissioners agreed it needed more time.
“I want to make sure that the community at large is aware of it,” said Commissioner Mattie Scott, who hopes the department can hear from the city’s Ethiopian community as part of the process to refine the policy.
“Understanding is key in every community when it comes to law enforcement and the safety of our community,” Scott said. “Knowing how to report something is very crucial.”
A step forward, a step back
The updated policy requires officers to spot signs that someone needs language help, such as shifting between languages or using gestures, and offer interpretation before being asked.
Advocates say that step is crucial. Just two months ago, a Threads post went viral among Bay Area Chinese communities after a user claimed to witness two Cantonese-speaking elders who asked for an interpreter at Central Station in Chinatown but never got one. SFPD responded in a separate post that the office has Cantonese services, but the two spoke English to officers and never requested an interpreter.
Under the new policy, officers can’t just use “they never asked” as an excuse for not offering interpretation, said Annie Lee, managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. The policy requires officers to proactively offer interpretation if someone shows signs they don’t speak English fluently.
“If they speak to the officer in English and speak to the other person in Chinese, that’s a sign,” she said. “It should be an opportunity to make sure that you affirmatively provide it.”
Lee saw that change as an improvement, yet she worried the update loosens the standard set by the 2007 policy.
She noted that the new policy uses “should” instead of “shall” for steps officers follow to offer interpretation on scene and when responding to requests for language services other than the four languages the city mandates for translation.
“’Should’ is best practice, but we are trying to create policies that hold officers accountable and set the standard and make it very clear,” Lee said, worrying that if the subtle language change turns what is supposed to be a requirement into recommendations.
Looser rules, more officer flexibility
One provision that was removed from the new policy required officers to ensure a qualified interpreter had no connection to the parties involved.
Another change involves family members, neighbors, friends and bystanders. The current policy allows them to interpret only in extreme circumstances, including when someone’s life is in danger, and requires a certified interpreter once the situation is resolved. The updated policy removes that language.
Under the new policy, officers will decide what type of encounter they’re facing and apply different standards for interpretation. If an officer determines a situation is non-criminal, the person can decline interpretation and use their own methods. For “non-police services,” such as giving directions or building rapport, officers have more flexibility to use family members, including children, or digital interpretation tools.
“How do you know when you don’t even know what the person is saying if it’s going to be criminal or not criminal?” Lee said, adding that officers face fluid situations that can easily shift, creating confusion.
Asja Steeves, the department’s policy division manager, said the policy is for officers who are trained to categorize situations. She added that while most restrictions for other situations remain, loosening rules for “non-police services” is meant to give flexibility for casual, non-enforcement-related interactions.
“Our officers are out every single day on the streets, they’re encountering people all day,” Steeves said, adding that a lot of that interaction is as simple as having conversations with people. “We wanted to expand that so that officers didn’t have to call the certified member if they had a conversation.”
