Free meters, use of disabled parking spots, and free full-service treatment at gas stations are among the privileges the California Department of Motor Vehicles grants people with disabilities who apply for and receive special license plates or placards. Disabled military veterans also receive license and vehicle registration fee waivers.

Among the veterans with access to those privileges are at least five active-duty San Francisco police officers. And that’s a problem in the eyes of the Police Department, which says officers with disability parking privileges must either give them up or disclose their disabilities so the department can evaluate if they are fit for duty.

In October, SFPD Chief Bill Scott ordered a crackdown, requiring members of the rank and file with disabled plates or placards to either give them up or seek accommodations.

But a handful of officers and their union are pushing back, claiming they have done little or nothing wrong and are being unfairly targeted. Five have secured representation from Southern California attorney Matthew McNicholas, who called his clients “heroes [who] shouldn’t face scrutiny for an honor earned.” He said the SFPD’s actions could constitute unlawful discrimination. 

All SFPD personnel between the rank of officer and captain must pass a biannual physical fitness evaluation, which by law must relate directly to their work duties. That test includes running a mile and a half and climbing over a wall. Disabled officers with physical restrictions are not required to participate but can choose to do so with accommodations after being cleared by medical personnel.

“The purpose of it is to make sure officers are adequately fit to do the job,” said John Alden, director of a civilian agency that provides oversight of Sonoma County law enforcement. “You don’t want officers who are so unfit they are at risk of injuring themselves or unable to protect others because of their low level of fitness.”

Under the state vehicle code, special plates and placards are for drivers whose disabilities significantly impair mobility. Holding a disabled parking permit therefore “suggests a sworn member’s ability to perform essential job functions may be impaired by a medical condition, or that performing essential peace officer duties may pose a substantial risk of harm to the sworn member or the public,” the SFPD chief’s announcement said.

“They are supposed to be telling the department about any disability they have that would impair them from doing the job,” Alden said, adding that if the officers have these limitations, “they shouldn’t be active duty cops anymore.” His statement was echoed by former officers and other oversight professionals.

“It raises a question of a fitness for duty evaluation if records indicate that someone has a disability that would qualify for a handicapped placard and they are at work,” said a former police officer. “Either they can work or they cannot.”

SFPD spokesperson Evan Sernoffsky said the chief’s order speaks for itself, and the department cannot comment on personnel matters.

McNicholas, the attorney representing the officers, said all five have 100% disability ratings from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but none have a mobility impairment that would prevent them from serving in the field. 

That’s not necessarily a contradiction. Under the VA’s system, multiple unrelated impairments — for example, tinnitus, migraines, and painful scars — can add up to a total disability rating of 100%, even if they don’t impair mobility.

None of the five officers McNicholas represents are in arrears of their physical fitness evaluations, he said. He declined to share their names to spare them unwanted attention should they choose to not pursue litigation. 

Four of the officers have provided notes from their doctors verifying their disabilities, he said.

“They wanted to keep their plates, and they didn’t want to have to deal with any hullabaloo,” he said.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association said the SFPD’s order amounts to harassment.

“The reality is the department was able to review the military medical records of the officers before they were hired, and the department’s physician cleared these officers for duty,” said Tracy McCray, head of the union and an 11-year U.S. Army veteran who has no disabled plates or placard. “So, if police command has a problem with how wounded combat veterans are classified, they should take that up with Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, or the president of the United States instead of harassing hard-working officers who are making our streets safer.”

The VA acknowledges that its designation of disability doesn’t necessarily qualify a veteran for special plates under the California vehicle code.

“Veterans Affairs defers to the states that issue special parking rights for the criteria,” a spokesperson said in a statement. A clear example of 100% disability with a right to disabled parking would be a bilateral amputee, he explained.

The SFPD is short about 500 officers. One tactic to try to fill the ranks has been to attract military veterans with a buffet of perks from GI benefits during academy training to paid military leave.

McCray said petty infractions should not be a focus of an understaffed department.

“If the department wants to spend its time cruising police parking lots with a clipboard and a camera, they can do so,” she said.

In 2023, California passed a law to crack down on the fraudulent use of placards. Eric Harris, director of public policy at the advocacy group Disability Rights California, says the issue is larger than law enforcement taking advantage of the system. “[American Disability Act] placards are really, really important for disabled people to have some level of access to parking,” he said. 

Former police officers said the SFPD was right in taking action and should investigate further as it works to protect its progress making reforms.

“An officer — on or off duty — parking their vehicle with a blue placard on it is something the department would want to investigate,” said Jim Dudley, a criminal justice lecturer at SF State University and a retired SFPD officer.

Dudley thinks it’s a good administrative move to annually survey officers about accommodations as part of the SFPD’s early intervention system to identify symptoms of job stress and personal problems. For example, the system might flag an officer whose license was suspended for a DUI.

“You need to do these audits just to make sure that everything’s good and above board,” he said.

A former command staffer, who asked to remain anonymous, called inappropriate parking permits an abuse of power.

“Stupid, stupid, stupid,” he said about potential abuse. “In an agency that has gone through a professional standards autopsy by the Department of Justice, why would they think that that’s OK?”