S.F. Police Code Article 49 § 4916
PREEMPTION (San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance)
Operative Text
The City recognizes that in some circumstances state or federal law governs some of the matters addressed in this Article. Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted or applied by a court or an agency of City government so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with federal or state law or with a requirement of any government agency, including any agency of City government, implementing federal or state law. Consistent with the foregoing preemption principle, for example, the OLSE and the HRC are authorized to not enforce any provision of this Article upon determining that its application in a particular context would conflict with federal or state law or with a requirement of a government agency implementing federal or state law. As another example consistent with the foregoing preemption principle, Employers may inquire about criminal convictions outside of the time periods set forth in this Article where required by federal or state law or a government agency implementing federal or state law. These examples are illustrative and do not limit the scope of the preemption principle stated in this Section 4916 .
Section 4916 of San Francisco Police Code Article 49 establishes a preemption rule: wherever federal or state law conflicts with the requirements of Article 49, the higher law takes precedence and the local provisions yield. Enforcement agencies such as the OLSE and HRC are explicitly authorized to decline enforcement of any Article 49 provision when applying it would create a conflict with federal or state law. The section also notes that employers may ask about criminal convictions outside the timeframes Article 49 normally sets when a separate federal or state legal obligation requires it.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Section 4916 means that property owners and employers operating under Article 49 are not automatically bound by its specific requirements when a conflicting federal or state law applies to their situation. Compliant operators generally document the specific federal or state legal basis whenever they deviate from Article 49's standard rules—for example, when inquiring about criminal history outside the article's usual look-back periods. Keeping clear records of which external legal authority justifies any departure from Article 49 is a practice commonly associated with compliance under this preemption framework.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Under Section 4916, tenants and applicants should be aware that some Article 49 protections may not be enforced if a conflicting federal or state law applies in a given context. The OLSE and HRC retain discretion to decline enforcement in those circumstances, though they are also the bodies where concerns about Article 49 violations can generally be raised. Tenant-rights organizations familiar with San Francisco's fair chance ordinance can help individuals understand whether a preemption claim in a specific context is well-founded.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 12, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
Rules and statutes cited by this regulation
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.