To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body

July 11, 2012

 

 

 

JULY 11, 2012 REGULAR MEETING

 

 

 

The Police Commission of the City and County of San Francisco met in Room 400, City Hall, #1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, at 5:40 p.m., in a Regular Meeting.

PRESENT: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Turman, Loftus

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

Request of the Chief of Police to accept donation of $4,000.00 from Ms. Karen Fireman for the use of the SFPD Mounted Unit

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Chan, second by Commissioner Loftus. Approved 6

 

0.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

 

RESOLUTION 12

36

 

 

 

APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO ACCEPT DONATION FOR THE SFPD MOUNTED UNIT OF $4,000.00 FROM MS. KAREN FIREMAN

 

 

 

RESOLVED, that the Police Commission hereby approves the request of the Chief of Police to accept donation for the SFPD Mounted Unit of $4,000.00 from Ms. Karen Fireman.

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Turman, Loftus

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

 

For the meetings of March 28th, April 4th, 18th, 25th, May 2nd, 16th, June 6th, 20th, & 27, 2012

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Kingsley, second by Commissioner Chan. Approved 6

 

0.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ace Washington thanked the Chief for accepting his invitation to attend a meeting in the Northern and spoke in regards to the African American out migration and went on to talk about stop and frisk.

Clyde spoke in regards to stop and frisk.

REPORTS TO THE COMMISSION

a. Chief’s Report

 

Review of recent activities

 

 

 

Update regarding revisions to DGO 5.05, "Response and Pursuit Driving," and DGO 5.01, "Use of Force"

 

 

 

Update on road conditions leading to the Crime Lab

 

 

Chief Suhr updated the Commission on recent activities in the Department and talked about recent violence in the Sunnydale. The Chief also talked about stop and frisk.

The Chief also gave a brief update regarding the revisions of DGOs 5.05 and 5.01. Next update will be August 15

 

th.

 

Captain Cassanego and Lt. Perea updated the Commission regarding road conditions leading to the Crime Lab.

 

b. OCC Director’s report

 

Review of recent activities

 

 

Director Hicks updated the Commission on the OCC’s June statistics and the OCC budget.

c. Commission reports

 

Commission President’s report

 

 

 

Commissioners’ reports

 

 

Commissioner Kingsley reported that she met with Director Hicks and Ms. Salazar in regards to the OCC’s mediation program.

d. Commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future Commission meetings

Inspector Monroe announced that the Commission will meet in the Ingleside on July 25

 

th at the Our Lady of Visitacion School at 655 Sunnydale, starting at 6 p.m.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

 

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACCEPT A GIFT FROM HEWLETT PACKARD TO THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SIXTY (60) LAPTOPS, VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $59,400.00

 

 

 

Chief Suhr gave a brief background regarding the donation and went on to thank Hewlett Packard for their donation.

Motion by Commissioner Kingsley, second by Commissioner DeJesus. Approved 5

 

0.

 

Commissioner Turman asked to be recused due to his attorney

 

 

client relationship with HP.

 

Motion by Commissioner DeJesus, second by Commissioner Kingsley to recuse Commissioner Turman. Approved 5

 

 

0.

 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 12

37

 

 

 

APPROVAL TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACCEPT A GIFT FROM HEWLETT PACKARD TO THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT OF SIXTY (60) LAPTOPS, VALUED AT APPROXIMATELY $59,400.00

 

 

 

RESOLVED, that the Police Commission hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept a gift from Hewlett Packard to the San Francisco Police Department of sixty (60) laptops, valued at approximately $59,400.00.

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Loftus

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

RECUSED: Commissioner Turman

DISPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES FILED AGAINST ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA (FIL ENO. ALW C12

 

033), OR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO SUSTAIN OR NOT SUSTAIN SPECIFICATIONS AND TO DECIDE PENALTY, IF NECESSARY

 

 

 

Ms. Ashley Worsham, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the San Francisco Police Department.

Assistant Patrol Special Officer Tachihara appeared in person and was represent by Mr. Lou Silver, Attorney at Law.

(These proceedings were taken in shorthand form by Ms. Anna Greenley, CSR., Roomian and Associates)

HEARING OF ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA, STAR NO. 2511

(FILE NO. ALW C12033)

 

 

 

 

The hearing of Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara, Star No. 2511, was called it having been set for this date. Assistant Patrol Special Officer Tachihara was charged, in a properly verified complaint by Acting Chief Jeffrey Godown, former Acting Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department, with violating the Rules and Procedures, as follows:

SPECIFICATION NO. 1

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer In an attempt to Purchase an "Off

 

list" Firearm (a violation of Rules 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 of the San Francisco Police Department);

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 2

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer and Carrying a Concealed Weapon into City Arms While Dressed in Civilian Clothe (a violation of Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 and Rules 3.18 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants.);

SPECIFICATION NO. 3

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer on Record of Sale for a Firearm and Application for Firearms Permit, and Falsely Facilitating the Sale of an "Off

 

 

List" Firearm (a violation of Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01);

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 4

Failure to Follow the Rules Regarding Use of Uniform and Equipment, Including His Firearm, While on Duty (a violation of Rules 4.20 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);

SPECIFICATION NO. 5

Making False and Misleading Statements and Being Willfully and Knowingly Evasive During an Internal Affairs Division Interview (a violation of Rule 4.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).

Ms. Ashley Worsham, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the San Francisco Police Department.

Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara appeared in person and was represented by Mr. Louis Silver, Attorney at Law.

The Commission took the matter under submission and the following resolution was adopted:

 

RESOLUTION NO. 12

38

 

 

 

DECISION – HEARING OF ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA

(FILE NO. ALW C12033)

 

 

 

 

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, Chief Gregory P. Suhr, Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department, made and served charges against Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara, as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

(1) At all times herein mentioned Ernest Tachihara, Star Number 2511, (hereinafter referred to as the "Accused") was and is an Assistant Patrol Special. The accused patrols a beat located in the Northern District.

(2) An Assistant Patrol Special is defined as "A private patrol person approved and appointed by the Police Commission and employed by a Patrol Special to perform security duties of a private nature for private persons or businesses within the assigned area of their employers beat." An Assistant Patrol Special is not the owner of a beat.

(3) Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials are not members of the uniform ranks of the Police Department and they are not employees of the City and County of San Francisco. An Assistant Patrol Special is responsible for knowing and obeying the rules and procedures of the Patrol Special Officers and Assistant Patrol Special Officers. (See the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants, Adopted by the San Francisco Police Commission, December 10, 2008).

(4) Encompassed in those rules is the directive that Patrol Specials and their Assistants shall obey all written orders of the Department that are not clearly inapplicable to their respective assignments. (See Rule 3.12(A) of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants.)

SPECIFICATION NO. 1

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer In an attempt to Purchase an "Off

 

list" Firearm (a violation of Rules 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 of the San Francisco Police Department);

 

(5) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (4) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

(6) In August 2010, Lt. Parra #981 went to City Arms located at 90 Eureka Square, Suite D in Pacifica to respond to questions regarding Patrol Special Officers and Assistant Patrol Special Officers and whether or not they had peace officer status as defined by Penal Code

 

 

§830.2.

 

(7) Lt. Parra informed the employees that Patrol Special Officers and Assistant Patrol Special Officers were not peace officers and that they were not allowed to purchase "non

 

 

roster" or "offlist" firearms. Lt. Parra also provided them and a copy of the prior PSO and APSO identification cards and current identification cards.

 

(8) "Non

 

 

roster" firearms or "Offlist" firearms are terms commonly used to define weapons that can only be sold to active peace officers. "Roster" is a term used to describe the list of approved handguns that can be sold legally in California to nonlaw enforcement individuals. Currently there are no Penal Code Statutes that criminalize the act of purchasing an "Offlist" firearm.

 

(9) On September 28, 2010, an employee from City Arms notified Lt. Parra that a Patrol Special or Assistant Patrol Special had attempted to purchase an "Off

 

 

list" firearm. This information was forwarded to Lt. Robert Yick, who at the time was the assigned Liaison for the Patrol Special Program.

 

(10) On September 30, 2010, Lt. Yick responded to City Arms and met with the owner, Vladimir Chaban and employee, Yan Traytel. They had described the individual as an Asian male in his 60’s and stated that approximately six to seven

months prior this person had purchased a Mossberg shotgun 500 and a Glock 17 or 19 from City Arms. On that date six or seven months prior, the accused had introduced himself as a San Francisco Police Officer and presented an ID card which had a blue band on it. (The Patrol Special identification cards have yellow bands.)

(11) Lt. Yick showed Mr. Chaban and Mr. Traytel his SFPD ID and Mr. Traytel stated that the accused’s ID was similar in appearance. Mr. Traytel also stated that the accused was in civilian clothes and carrying a concealed Glock firearm, on his person, when he came into City Arms.

(12) Both Mr. Chaban and Mr. Traytel identified the accused, Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara as the person who attempted to purchase an "off

 

 

list" firearm, a 4th Generation Glock 22.

 

(13) According to Mr. Chaban, on or about September 16, 2010 or September 17, 2010, the accused telephoned City Arms and identified himself as a peace officer and ordered an "Off

 

 

list" 4th Generation Glock 22. The accused also provided his credit card information at that time.

 

(14) On September 23,2 010 or September 24, 2010, the accused arrived at City Arms to complete the transaction and Department of Justice Dealer Record of Sale paperwork ("DROS"). Mr. Chaban instructed his employee Mr. Traytel to complete the transaction. Mr. Traytel recognized the accused as a person who had legally purchased two firearms six or seven months prior.

(15) Mr. Traytel asked the accused for his identification and the accused presented his current Assistant Patrol special identification card which has the yellow band on the top. After looking at the identification presented by the accused and realizing the accused was not a peace officer, Mr. Traytel denied the purchase.

(16) According to Mr. Traytel, the accused became agitated and attempted to justify the purchase by stating that he was retired US Marshall. Mr. Traytel refused to complete the transaction and the accused left City Arms in an agitated state.

(17) Lt. Yick showed Mr. Traytel and Mr. Chaban a photo of the accused and both positively identified the accused as the person who attempted to purchase an "Off

 

 

list" firearm. Mr. Traytel signed and dated the photo and Mr. Chaban stated that he was unaware that the accused was not a peace officer.

 

(18) Additionally, both Mr. Chaban and Mr. Traytel stated that the accused has come into City Arms on several occasions dressed in his full uniform. When confronted with this allegation, the accused admitted, during his IAD interview, that he has gone into City Arms while in uniform and while on

 

 

duty. The accused attempted to justify leaving the Northern District and driving to Pacifica in full uniform by saying, "I was on my way back from taking care of some business, I’d swing by to pick up a gun. I mean, I’m on official business." City Arms is nowhere near any of his contractual obligations in San Francisco.

 

(19) The accused, by falsely identifying himself as a peace officer, in an attempt to purchase an "Off

 

 

list" firearm, engaged in serious misconduct by misrepresenting the truth to employees at City Arms in an effort to obtain a firearm that can only be sold to sworn peace officer. This misconduct reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 of the San Francisco Police Department. Any reasonable Assistant Patrol Special must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 of the San Francisco Police Department, state:

 

 

"Rule 3.18 – PEACE OFFICER STATUS

Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not represent that they are peace officers under the state law or that they are authorized to exercise peace officer powers."

"Rule 9 – MISCONDUCT. Any breach of peace, neglect of duty, misconduct or any conduct by an officer either within or without the state that tends to subvert the order, efficiency or discipline of the Department, or reflects discredit upon the Department or any member, or is prejudicial to the efficiency and discipline of the Department, although not specifically defined or set forth in Department policies and procedures, shall be considered unofficer

 

like conduct subject to disciplinary action."

 

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 2

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer and Carrying a Concealed Weapon into City Arms While Dressed in Civilian Clothe (a violation of Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 and Rules 3.18 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants.);

(20) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (19) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

(21) Approximately six to seven months before the accused attempted to purchase the "Off

 

list" Glock 22, Generation 4 firearm, the accused purchased a Mossberg shotgun and Glock 17 or 19 from City Arms.

 

(22) Mr. Traytel remembered the accused because he introduced himself as a San Francisco Police Officer and presented his identification card. The identification card was predominantly white with a blue band on the top, similar to that of sworn members of the San Francisco Police Department.

(23) The accused was dressed in civilian attire and was carrying a concealed Glock firearm on his person. Mr. Traytel believed that the accused was a peace officer.

(24) The accused, by falsely identifying himself as a peace officer while dressed in civilian clothes and carrying a concealed firearm, engaged in misconduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01 of the San Francisco Police Department and Rules 3.18 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants. Any reasonable Assistant Patrol Special must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 9 of DGO 2.01 and Rules 3.18 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, state:

 

"Rule 9 – MISCONDUCT. Any breach of peace, neglect of duty, misconduct or any conduct by an officer either within or without the state that tends to subvert the order, efficiency or discipline of the Department, or reflects discredit upon the Department or any member, or is prejudicial to the efficiency and discipline of the Department, although not specifically defined or set forth in Department policies and procedures, shall be considered unofficer

 

like conduct subject to disciplinary action."

 

"Rule 3.18 – PEACE OFFICER STATUS

Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not represent that they are peace officers under the state law or that they are authorized to exercise peace officer powers."

"Rule 5.06 – UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT ITEMS DISPLY OFF DUTY

Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not wear or use any uniform or equipment item, including weapons, except en route to and from their beats, and while on

 

 

duty as a Patrol Special Officer or Assistant Patrol Special Officer in the City and County of San Francisco."

 

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 3

Falsely Identifying Himself as a Peace Officer on Record of Sale for a Firearm and Application for Firearms Permit, and Falsely Facilitating the Sale of an "Off

 

List" Firearm (a violation of Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01);

 

(25) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (24) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

(26) In September 2010, the accused was told by Mr. Traytel of City Arms that he could not purchase an "Off

 

 

list" firearm because he was not a peace officer. A month later October 15, 2010, the accused went to Security Six located at 22698 Mission Boulevard in Hayward and purchased an "Offlist" firearm (Glock Model 22 Generation 4, .40 caliber, Serial #PHZ404).

 

(27) This transaction was investigated by the Internal Affairs – Criminal Division and the Internal Affairs Division. Sgt. Minner #149, of IAD

 

 

Criminal and Sgt. Wilhelm of the Internal Affairs Division, interviewed Larry Hamby, the owner of Security Six regarding the sale of the "Offlist" firearm to the accused.

 

(28) During his initial contact with Sgt. Minner, Mr. Hamby explained that he was not familiar with Patrol Special Officers and did not recall the sale in great detail. However, he did recall that the accused had an identification card that said "police" on it and he believed that the accused was a sworn police officer.

(29) Mr. Hamby stated that it was his normal practice to take orders over the telephone. If someone called to order a firearm that only law enforcement officers are able to purchase, his normal practice was to notify the customer and remind them to bring their law enforcement identification. In response, the customer would inform him as to whether or not they were sworn peace officers. Mr. Hamby stated he would then complete the Dealer’s Record of Sale of Firearm ("DROS") paperwork on his computer, and provide the original to the customer for their review and signature when they came to pick up the firearm. The accused did not tell Mr. Hamby that he was not a sworn peace officer or that he was a Patrol Special Officer without peace officer status and Mr. Hamby does not recall the accused making any comments regarding his law enforcement status at the time of the transaction.

(30) During his interview with Sgt. Wilhelm of the Internal Affairs Division, Mr. Hamby acknowledged that he did recall the transaction with the accused.

(31) Mr. Hamby stated that the firearm the accused purchased was an "Off

 

 

list" firearm because of its high capacity magazine. According to Mr. Hamby, due to the high capacity magazine, the firearm purchased by the accused is only for police officers or commissioned officers. The Glock 22 Generation 4, which was purchased by the accused, is a fifteenround magazine and in order to sell the same weapon to the general public, the firearm could only have a tenround magazine.

 

(32) Mr. Hamby stated that the accused showed him an identification card that had the "San Francisco Police Department’ prominently featured, and a star that had "San Francisco Police" prominently displayed. The back side of the identification card had "San Francisco Police Department" displayed at the top and stated that the card was the property of the San Francisco Police Department. Although the words "Assistant Patrol Special Officer" appeared on the ID, Mr. Hamby believed the accused was part of a specialized unit within the Department. Sgt. Wilhelm showed Mr. Hamby the accused’s current Assistant Patrol Special identification card, which was also current at the time of this purchase, and Mr. Hamby stated that the accused never showed him that identification card.

(33) Mr. Hamby provided the original DROS form and stated that the accused signed and placed his finger print on the form. The accused signed this form under "penalty of perjury" that the information contained on the form was true and correct. Under the category "EXEMPTION TYPE" are the words "peace officer."

Although Mr. Hamby typed in this information, the accused acknowledged that the information was true and correct. Under the heading "Transaction Type," Mr. Hamby typed in the words "Non

 

 

Roster Peace Officer." The accused acknowledged that this information was true and correct by signing the form and allowing Mr. Hamby to complete the transaction.

 

(34) In addition to misleading Mr. Hamby into believing he was a peace officer, the accused falsely identified himself as a peace officer on the Application for Firearms Permit on December 22, 2009. Mr. Hamby stated that the accused filled out this application for the firearms permit renewal and he kept this form on file as part of his business, Mr. Hamby also conducts range qualifications for security personnel who have firearm permits This application has a section related to "peace officer" status and the first question specifically asked if the person filling out the application was an "active duty peace officer," as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with section 890) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code?" The accused checked the box marked "yes" to this question.

(35) In addition to falsely identifying himself as a peace officer to Mr. Hamby and attesting under penalty of perjury that he was a peace officer on an application for a firearms permit, the accused contacted Mr. Hamby regarding this case. According to Mr. Hamby, the accused called him and told him that he had an IAD interview. The accused also told Mr. Hamby that everything was cleared up. Mr. Hamby told the accused that he could not discuss the case with him and the accused continued to tell him that the matter was resolved. Mr. Hamby ended the conversation and the accused continued to call his business for several days.

(36) The accused, by falsely representing on his Application for a Firearm’s Permit that he was a peace officer and by fraudulently facilitating the sale of an "off

 

 

list" firearm which included signing the DROS under penalty of perjury, engaged in serious misconduct that not only placed the public in jeopardy, it also placed Security Six and Mr. Hamby in jeopardy of criminal prosecution and significant fines for the firearms transaction. This conduct reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01. Any reasonable Assistant Patrol Special must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 3.18 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants and Rule 9 of Department General Order 2.01, state:

 

 

"Rule 3.18 – PEACE OFFICER STATUS

Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not represent that they are peace officers under the state law or that they are authorized to exercise peace officer powers."

"Rule 9 – MISCONDUCT. Any breach of peace, neglect of duty, misconduct or any conduct by an officer either within or without the state that tends to subvert the order, efficiency or discipline of the Department, or reflects discredit upon the Department or any member, or is prejudicial to the efficiency and discipline of the Department, although not specifically defined or set forth in Department policies and procedures, shall be considered unofficer

 

like conduct subject to disciplinary action."

 

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 4

Failure to Follow the Rules Regarding Use of Uniform and Equipment, Including His Firearm, While on Duty (a violation of Rules 4.20 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);

(37) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (36) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

(38) During the course of the IAD interview, Mr. Traytel stated that the accused had come into City Arms (located in Pacifica) several times dressed in his full uniform.

(39) The accused, during his IAD interview, admitted that he has gone to City Arms while on

 

duty. The accused attempted to justify his actions by saying, "I was on my way back from taking care of some business, I’d swing by to pick up a gun. I mean I’m on official business."

 

(40) The accused, by repeatedly traveling to City Arms dressed in full uniform and on

 

 

duty, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rules 4.20 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants. Any reasonable Assistant Patrol Special must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rules 4.20 and 5.06 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, state:

 

 

"4.20 – CONDUCT. Any conduct by a Patrol Special Officer or an Assistant while on patrol which constitutes a breach of peace or a failure to perform his or her contractual duties, or any conduct by a Patrol Special or Assistant Patrol Special while working which undermines his or her ability to discharge contractual duties which reflects discredit upon the Department (though such offense are not specifically defined or laid down in these rules and procedures) shall be considered misconduct subjecting the Patrol Special or Assistant Patrol Special to disciplinary action as herein set forth."

"Rule 5.06 – UNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT ITEMS DISPLAY OFF DUTY

Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not wear or use any uniform or equipment item, including weapons, except en route to and from their beats, and while on

 

duty as a Patrol Special Officer or Assistant Patrol Special Officer in the City and County of San Francisco."

 

 

SPECIFICATION NO. 5

Making False and Misleading Statements and Being Willfully and Knowingly Evasive During an Internal Affairs Division Interview (a violation of Rule 4.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).

(41) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (40) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

(42) As previously stated, an Assistant Patrol Special is defined as "A private patrol person approved and appointed by the Police Commission and employed by a Patrol Special to perform security duties of a private nature for private persons or businesses within the assigned area of their employer’s beat." An Assistant Patrol Special is not the owner of a beat.

(43) A "beat" is defined as "that area of patrol within which a Patrol Special Officer has contracted with private persons or businesses to perform security duties with permission granted from the Police Commission, per Charter section 4.127."

(44) As part of his investigation, the accused was interviewed on January 10, 2012. During that interview, the accused admitted that he had been administratively running Patrol Special Beat 72.

(45) The accused admitted that he collects money directly from merchants and is currently working and administratively running beat 72.

(46) The accused stated that he had the express permission of the current President of the San Francisco Police Commission to administratively run Beat 72 despite the fact the accused is an Assistant Patrol Special Officer. The accused stated that he submitted a letter to the current President of the Police Commission and sent letters to the Merchants

(47) The President of the San Francisco Police Commission was contacted by Internal Affairs and stated he never gave the accused permission to administratively rune Beat 72 and that he does not have the authority to grant such permission.

Furthermore, he stated that the only statement made to the accused regarding Beat 72 was that the accused should try to purchase the beat.

(48) In addition to falsely stating that the President of the Police Commission gave him permission to run Beat 72, the Accused has demonstrated a pattern of misrepresenting the truth when questioned on matters related to his employment and the purchase and attempted purchase of firearms. Mr. Chaban, Mr. Traytel, and Mr. Hamby all stated that the accused represented himself as a San Francisco Police Officer. Throughout his IAD interview, the accused repeatedly denies these statements and attributes all inaccurate statements to Mr. Chaban, Mr. Traytel, and Mr. Hamby.

(49) The accused, by falsely stating that the President of the Police Commission gave him permission to run Beat 72 and by repeatedly failing to answer questions related to his employment truthfully and without evasion, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 4.04 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants. Any reasonable Assistant Patrol Special must know that such conduct is cause for discipline and/or revocation of his appointment. Rule 4.04 of the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:

"4.04. INVESTIGATIONS. Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall, when called upon by a police officer or by one specially assigned by lawful authority to conduct an investigation involving a police matter, truthfully answer all questions propounded. All reports, statements and declarations made orally or in writing in the foregoing matters shall contain the truth without evasion."

LIMITATIONS PERIOD

(50) Although the Interim Rules for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants do not reference a time limit with regards to notice of pending allegations of misconduct, these matters described herein were the subject of criminal investigations by the San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute on or about December 13, 2011, due to lack of jurisdiction and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office issued declination letter on January 4, 2012.

PENALTIES

:

(51) If the Specifications are sustained after trial by the Police Commission, the Department will recommend that the Commission revoke the accused’s appointment.

WHEREAS, a hearing on said charges were held before the Police Commission pursuant to section 8.343 of the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco on April 30, 2012, May 21, 2012, and on July 11, 2012, the matter was submitted to the Police Commission for decision; and

WHEREAS, the Commission decided the following:

SPECIFICATION NO. 1

 

Sustained

 

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Turman, Loftus

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

SPECIFICATION NO. 2

 

 

Not Sustained

 

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Loftus

NAYS: Commissioners DeJesus, Turman, Chan

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

SPECIFICATION NO. 3

 

 

Sustained

 

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Turman, Loftus

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

SPECIFICATION NO. 4

 

 

Sustained

 

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Turman, Loftus

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

SPECIFICATION NO. 5

 

 

Dismissed

 

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, Chan, DeJesus, Turman, Loftus

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

RESOLVED, that consistent with the Commission’s duty to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and County of San Francisco and the public in general, and in order to promote efficiency and discipline in the Patrol Special Officer Program, the Police Commission orders that the appointment of Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara as Assistant Patrol Special Officer be revoked effective immediately.

AYES: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Turman, Loftus

RECUSED: Commissioner Kingsley

ABSENT: Commissioner Mazzucco

 

(These proceedings were taken in shorthand form by Ms. Anna Greenley, CSR, Roomian & Associates)

If this decision is subject to review under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, then the time and within which judicial review must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, section 1094.6.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON ALL MATTER PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION

Unidentified discussed concerns regarding holding closed session on settlement matters.

VOTE ON WHETHER TO HOLD CLOSED SESSION

Motion by Commissioner Chan, second by Commissioner DeJesus. Approved

6

 

0.

 

 

CLOSED SESSION

 

(7:34 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.)

 

 

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Existing Litigation

Saeed Ibrahim v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,

US District Court No. DV

111695RS

 

 

(Present: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Turman, Loftus, Deputy City Attorney Porter, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Inspector Monroe, Sergeant Jusino) Resolution No. 12

 

39

 

 

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Existing Litigation

Lepaskshi Nadh Jilkara v. CCSF,

SF Superior Court No. 510513

(Present: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Turman, Loftus, Deputy City Attorney Porter, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Inspector Monroe, Sergeant Jusino) Resolution No. 12

 

40

 

PERSONNEL EXCEPTION: Decision to return Appeal of the Chief’s Suspension filed in Case NO. ALW D09

 

 

158 to the Chief’s level for resolution

 

 

(Present: Commissioners Marshall, DeJesus, Chan, Kingsley, Turman, Loftus, Deputy City Attorney Porter, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Inspector Monroe, Sergeant Jusino, Attorney Worsham) Resolution No. 12

 

41

 

 

VOTE TO ELECT WHETHER TO DISCLOSE ANY OR ALL DISCUSSION HELD IN CLOSED SESSION

 

 

 

Motion by Commissioner Turman, second by Commissioner Chan for non disclosure. Approved 6

 

0.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Commissioner Kingsley, second by Commissioner Chan. Approved 6

 

0.

 

Thereafter, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

___________________________________

Inspector John Monroe

Secretary

San Francisco Police Commission

1345/rct

 

Last updated: 11/28/2012 3:53:58 PM