The SDPD Huff Precedent:
 |
| SDPD Sgt. Jeremy Huff |
Police Chief Tries to Fire Union Boss He Beefed With | Voice of San Diego
San Diego Police Department Accountability Crisis
From Waterborne Enforcement to Union Leadership to Targeted Dismissal
A career trajectory reveals how SDPD's broken oversight systems enabled misconduct, while departmental retaliation against dissenting union voices demonstrates institutional resistance to external accountability
Investigative Analysis | May 2026
BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT (BLUF):
Entry: From Florida Waterborne Law Enforcement to San Diego's Quality-of-Life Units
Sergeant Jeremy Huff arrived at the San Diego Police Department in 2012 with a decade of law enforcement experience behind him. He had worked as a state police officer for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and as a deputy for the Pima County Sheriff's Department in Tucson, Arizona.1 His background in waterborne law enforcement—he was a licensed yacht and dive boat captain—positioned him for specialized work in San Diego, a coastal city where maritime enforcement is a significant operational category.
His early assignments reflected this expertise. Huff spent three years in the Department's Harbor Unit, utilizing his waterborne training and certifications. He then rotated through Northwestern Patrol and Northern Patrol divisions before joining the Northern's Quality of Life Team, later transferring to Central's Quality of Life Team.1 These assignments placed him directly in one of SDPD's most aggressive enforcement domains: quality-of-life operations targeting homelessness, street-level drug activity, and behaviors classified as disorderly.
The Quality of Life teams represent a critical juncture in understanding both Huff's trajectory and SDPD's broader institutional culture. These units, which evolved into the Neighborhood Policing Division created in March 2018, concentrate enforcement power on precisely the population most vulnerable to police abuse: homeless individuals, people with untreated mental illness, and economically disadvantaged populations.2 Research conducted by the San Diego State University Center for Research on Criminal Justice in 2016 found "meaningful differences in the treatment of Black and Hispanic drivers, as compared to whites" in traffic enforcement, disparities that "match the perceptions of some members of San Diego's minority communities."3
The California government accountability scorecard's analysis of SDPD found a remarkably low complaint sustain rate: 4% overall from 2016–2018, including 3% for criminal allegations, 0.4% for excessive force, and 0% for discrimination claims.3 This extraordinarily low accountability rate suggests either exceptional officer conduct across the board—a claim contradicted by subsequent public records releases—or a fundamentally compromised discipline system unable or unwilling to hold officers responsible for documented misconduct.
The Bravo Team Assignment and Patterns of Misconduct Within Specialized Units
From his Quality of Life enforcement background, Huff was incorporated into SDPD's Bravo Team, where he served for five years before his 2021 promotion to Motor Unit.1 Bravo Team's specific operations and composition remain largely opaque to public scrutiny, but the team's existence as a specialized enforcement unit suggests it occupied a similar status to other aggressive, discretionary enforcement groups within SDPD—units frequently associated with problematic behavior in police misconduct investigations released under California's Senate Bills 1421 and 16.
The broader SDPD misconduct record provides context. In investigations released under state transparency laws, the department documented racial discrimination allegations, improper searches and seizures of young Black men, and one officer caught yelling "I kill [Black People] for a living. I am a cop."4 Of 63 officers named in misconduct investigations since 2014, more than half—34—remained active in the department as of 2024.5
Critically, about one-third of SDPD's released misconduct cases contain missing disciplinary records entirely.5 In multiple cases, officers facing sustained findings for serious misconduct—including dishonesty and abuse of authority—left the force before formal discipline was administered, and their disciplinary histories did not follow them to other law enforcement agencies.5
This systemic failure to maintain coherent discipline records or prevent problem officers from transferring is precisely what enables officers like Huff to progress through specialized units without visible institutional consequence. It also creates a culture where minor infractions are formalized in one-page written warnings (as in Huff's 2021 case) while egregious conduct by other officers evaporates into personnel record limbo.
The Mira Mesa Incident: Unjustified Force, Body Camera Failure, and a Written Warning
In late February 2020, Huff and another officer approached a man sleeping on a pedestrian bridge in Mira Mesa. The suspect had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. During the arrest attempt, according to Internal Affairs, the suspect "tightened his arms and tried to turn away." Huff believed the man struck him and responded by punching the suspect three or four times. After wrestling him to the ground, when the suspect "refused to present his arms," Huff struck him in the face again.6
The Internal Affairs investigation concluded that the final punch constituted unjustified force. Huff was also cited for failing to activate his body-worn camera before or during the incident—a compounding violation of departmental policy designed to create video accountability for officer actions.6 In 2021, Huff received a written warning.
The significance of Huff's dual violation cannot be understated. The body camera failure was not incidental; it was the mechanism by which SDPD claimed to document and constrain officer conduct. By failing to activate it, Huff eliminated the primary evidentiary record of his actions. The fact that Internal Affairs could sustain the unjustified force finding despite this missing video speaks to the severity of the apparent conduct. Conversely, the written warning—the mildest form of discipline available—suggests that SDPD's disciplinary threshold for unjustified force against a homeless individual was extraordinarily high.
The Otay Valley Shooting: Tragic Outcome, Justified Finding, and Unanswered Questions
Just days after the Mira Mesa incident, on March 1, 2020, Huff was involved in a shooting at a homeless encampment in the Otay Valley riverbed. Officers were executing what authorities termed an "encampment clearance operation." Huff ordered a tent occupant—70-year-old Carlos Soto—to exit. When Soto emerged, Huff observed what appeared to be a handgun in his jacket pocket. Huff ordered Soto to lie on the ground. Instead, Soto reached toward the weapon.8
Huff fired one shot; his partner, Officer Filip Perry, fired eleven times. Soto sustained three gunshot wounds—two to his arm, one to his leg—and survived. After the shooting, officers recovered the weapon and discovered it was not a functional firearm but a BB gun, an air pistol bearing a superficial resemblance to a real weapon.8
The San Diego County District Attorney's office deemed the shooting justified because Soto reached for the weapon rather than complying with the command to lie down. Prosecutors determined that officers reasonably perceived a threat based on the object's appearance and Soto's failure to comply with verbal commands.8
What is remarkable is not that the shooting was found justified—prosecutors' legal analysis appears sound—but that this incident, combined with the Mira Mesa punch incident mere days earlier, did not trigger a deeper review of Huff's judgment, decision-making, or fitness for duty. Within a brief timeframe, Huff had used force against a non-compliant suspect (unjustified), failed to document that use of force, and fired upon a suspect reaching for an object that turned out to be non-lethal.
The absence of any documented review or counseling regarding the pattern of these incidents suggests that SDPD's early intervention systems, which the DOJ found to be deficient and in need of "complete overhaul," remain functionally inactive even a decade after federal scrutiny.
Vehicle Registration Charges and the Ambiguous Question of Dishonesty
More recently, Huff faced criminal charges for falsifying his vehicle registration and lying to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Court documents do not specify the circumstances, though vehicle registration fraud typically involves out-of-state registration to avoid California taxes and fees. City prosecutors eventually dropped the more serious charges; Huff was convicted only of a simple infraction for not having valid registration and paid a $25 fine.6
The charge's ultimate disposition raises a critical issue: under California's Senate Bill 2, which took effect January 1, 2022, "dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer" is designated as grounds for peace officer certification suspension or revocation.9,10 While Huff's vehicle registration infraction does not involve dishonesty related to crime reporting or misconduct investigation, any sustained finding involving false statements to a government agency could potentially fall within the broader definition of dishonesty that POST (California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training) considers in decertification proceedings.
The 2025 Union Presidency and the Public Clash with Chief Wahl
Huff was elected president of the San Diego Police Officers Association in mid-2025, ascending to leadership of the union representing rank-and-file officers. His tenure was extraordinarily brief. The catalyst for his rapid descent came in January 2025, when a video emerged showing an SDPD officer striking a man with his hands behind his head, apparently offering no resistance.6
Chief Wahl, in a radio interview, responded with measured language: "In this particular case, I think there are things we could have done better. We do have options that we could, and should be using at that point other than what was used."6 Wahl's statement represented a basic acknowledgment of a gap between departmental standards and performance in a specific incident—a routine administrative observation.
Huff's response was withering. He issued a written statement: "Police use of force is always a reaction to someone's actions. When someone complies with lawful orders, they get arrested or detained without incident. [Wahl's] statements have the potential to cause our members to second guess themselves during critical incidents where they only have a split second to make a choice. This doubt leads to bad decisions which can leave our members injured or dead."6
The union president's statement was not mere disagreement; it was a direct attack on the police chief's credibility as a leader and an explicit claim that Wahl's comments endangered officer safety. Wahl responded: "Responding to a use of force incident by reaffirming my commitment to give officers the training, resources, and support they need to consistently meet the highest standard is not placing blame. It is part of being a leader. It is disappointing that the new [union] president chose to spend his first few days in office misconstruing my intent instead of working with me to better support our officers."6
The exchange was tense, public, and directly challenged the chief's authority and judgment. Within approximately two months, Huff received his termination notice.
Selective Accountability: The Timing and Pattern of Retaliation
This is where Huff's case becomes emblematic of SDPD's broader crisis of accountability and institutional retaliation. His 2021 written warning for unjustified force and body camera failure was issued nearly four years before his termination notice. The vehicle registration charges, while more recent, were substantially resolved through the criminal justice system with minimal consequence. Neither incident occurred in temporal proximity to Huff's union election or his public criticism of Chief Wahl.
The termination notice, by contrast, arrived swiftly—approximately two months after the public dispute. The timing creates an unmistakable inference: a union official who vocally challenged police leadership became a target for removal.
This pattern mirrors broader SDPD institutional behavior. In March 2026, a veteran officer filed suit alleging that Chief Wahl sent inappropriate text messages to his ex-wife, a fellow officer. The lawsuit claims that after Wahl became police chief in 2024, he reversed a prior termination decision against the officer's ex-wife despite her documented stalking and theft allegations.11 The officer alleges Wahl was under investigation for an "inappropriate relationship" with this officer and told others at a public event that "the investigation did find some inappropriate messaging. The mayor isn't going to fire me for it, but I'm sure glad my wife isn't going to see it."11
The city spent approximately $37,400 on a San Francisco law firm to investigate unspecified allegations against Wahl in early 2025, yet refuses to disclose the findings or even the allegations themselves to the public, invoking California's confidentiality protections for peace officer records.12,13 Community activists have requested that the state's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training consider Wahl's conduct under decertification standards, but POST has declined to comment on whether it received complaints.13
Against this backdrop, Huff's removal appears less as accountability and more as silencing: a message to rank-and-file officers and union leadership that challenging the police chief carries consequences.
The Broader SDPD Accountability Crisis: Why Problem Officers Escape Discipline
SDPD's handling of officer misconduct reveals why a system capable of quickly terminating a union president cannot seem to hold serious offenders accountable. In 2023, KPBS and inewsource found that officer misconduct investigations frequently lack disciplinary outcomes, creating gaps in accountability records that follow officers throughout their careers.5 Detective James Needham, who lied to a judge to obtain a search warrant in a homicide case that resulted in the suspect's suicide and an eventual $6 million city settlement, retired 13 days after Internal Affairs completed its investigation—before formal discipline could be administered.14 Officer Cesar Alcantara staged a suicide scenario, threatened self-harm, sexually harassed colleagues, and engaged in domestic abuse, yet never faced formal discipline; he resigned before the investigation concluded and remains eligible to work in California law enforcement.14
These cases reveal a system where serious misconduct by officers below leadership level results in resignation before discipline, while union leadership faces swift termination threats for political speech.
California's SB 2 Framework: Decertification as a Potential Path Forward
Under SB 2, which took effect January 1, 2022, the state established a decertification process for peace officers for serious misconduct, defined to include "dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer."9 The law also encompasses abuse of power, physical abuse, and sexual abuse.9
A Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division within POST now reviews investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies and may initiate its own investigations into potential grounds for suspension or revocation. The commission must make findings by "clear and convincing evidence" and a two-thirds vote of POST commissioners is required to revoke certification.9,10
Whether the POST accountability division will examine Huff's record—or, more critically, whether it will examine the conduct of more senior officers and leadership figures responsible for perpetuating institutional failures—remains an open question.
The Question of Democratic Governance and Police Accountability
The arc of Jeremy Huff's career at SDPD illuminates a central challenge in police accountability: when the primary mechanism for holding officers to standards operates within an opaque, union-friendly, leadership-protective bureaucracy, accountability becomes selective and retaliatory.
Huff had documented misconduct—the unjustified force finding against a homeless individual, the body camera failure, a use-of-force incident in quick succession with a non-lethal object. None of these triggered career-altering consequences. His union presidency and public criticism of the police chief did.
San Diego's elected officials face a choice: allow the police department to operate as a largely autonomous institution resistant to accountability and dismissive of community oversight, or demand transparency about how personnel decisions are made, why problem officers escape discipline while union officials face termination, and whether administrative retaliation against police leadership is occurring.
The Huff case suggests that Wahl's police department has chosen the former path—institutional self-protection over public accountability.
Verified Sources and Citations
- 1. "Sergeant Jeremy Huff," San Diego Police Officers Association, October 8, 2025.
https://sdpoa.org/profile/sergeant-jeremy-huff/ - 2. City of San Diego
Parks and Recreation and Police Department, "SDPD Neighborhood Policing
Division Bolsters Neighborhood Quality of Life, Homeless Outreach
Efforts," City of San Diego Official Website.
https://www.sandiego.gov/homeless-services/news/sdpd-neighborhood-policing-division-bolsters-neighborhood-quality-life-homeless-outreach - 3. Center for Research on Criminal Justice, UC San Diego, "We Evaluated Policing in San Diego City and County," Police Scorecard.
https://policescorecard.org/sandiego - 4. "Racist Comments, Excessive Force and Offensive Behavior Revealed in SDPD Internal Affairs Cases," NBC 7 San Diego, May 11, 2024.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/investigations/racist-comments-excessive-force-and-offensive-behavior-revealed-in-san-diego-police-department-internal-affairs-cases/3166439/ - 5. Jill Castellano and Gustavo Solis, "Police Officers' Disciplinary Files Don't Always Follow Them to New Jobs," inewsource and KPBS Public Media, September 5, 2023; "Some Officers Escape Discipline Despite New Police Transparency Laws," KPBS Public Media, March 10, 2023.
https://inewsource.org/2023/03/09/san-diego-police-sb-16-midsconduct-records-deleted-new-jobs/ - 6. Will Huntsberry, "Police Chief Tries to Fire Union Boss He Beefed With," Voice of San Diego, May 1, 2026.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2026/05/01/police-chief-tries-to-fire-union-boss-he-beefed-with/ - 7. "San Diego Police's Program for Troubled Officers Is Itself Troubled," Voice of San Diego, March 16, 2022.
https://voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/san-diego-polices-program-for-troubled-officers-is-itself-troubled - 8. "DA's Office Clears Officers In Four Police Shootings, One In-Custody Death," KPBS Public Media, July 1, 2022; "SDPD Releases Footage of Officer-Involved Shooting at Homeless Encampment," NBC 7 San Diego, April 10, 2020.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/jul/29/das-office-clears-officers-four-police-shootings-o/ - 9. "Bill Text - SB-2 Peace Officers: Certification: Civil Rights," California Legislative Information, September 30, 2021.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB2 - 10. California Penal
Code § 13510.8(b), "Serious misconduct" definition and peace officer
decertification procedures, effective January 1, 2022.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-4/title-4/chapter-1/article-2/section-13510-8/ - 11. Nicole Darling, "Officer's Suit Alleges Retaliation, Claims Chief Sent Inappropriate Messages," ABC 10News, March 27, 2026.
https://www.10news.com/news/team-10/veteran-sdpd-officer-sues-city-alleges-retaliation-claims-chief-sent-inappropriate-messages - 12. Shelby Bremer, "San Diego Paid Law Firm $37K for Investigation Into Police Chief," NBC 7 San Diego, August 14, 2025.
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-police-chief-under-investigation/3886143/ - 13. "Activists Want State Commission to Consider Decertifying SDPD Chief," KPBS Public Media, August 30, 2025.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/public-safety/2025/08/26/activists-want-state-commission-to-consider-decertifying-sdpd-chief - 14. "San Diego Police Officer Stages Suicide, Shoots Gun in Home, Solicits Sex Workers — But Was Never Disciplined," inewsource, September 6, 2023.
https://inewsource.org/2023/04/27/san-diego-police-department-cesar-alcantara-misconduct/
Comments
Post a Comment