JANUARY 4, 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 5:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Slaughter, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioner DeJesus
(Commissioner Slaughter arrived at 7:30 p.m.)
Commander Tomioka introduced Inspector John Monroe who will be taking over for Captain Falvey as Commission Secretary.
CONSENT CALENDAR
‐
Request of the Chief of Police to accept donation for the SFPD Mounted Unit of $200.00, from Maloney Security Inc.
Motion by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Kingsley. Approved 5
‐0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
RESOLUTION 12
‐1
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO ACCEPT DONATION FOR THE SFPD MOUNTED UNIT OF $200.00 FROM MALONEY SECURITY INC.
RESOLVED, that the Police Commission hereby approves the request of the Chief of Police to accept donation for the SFPD Mounted Unit of $200.00 from Maloney Security Inc.
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioner DeJesus, Slaughter
ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
‐
For the meetings of October 12th, 19th, November 2nd, 16th, 30th, and December 7, 2011
Motion by Commissioner Kingsley, second by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the minutes. Approved 5
‐0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jeanette Berger discussed concerns regarding a problem with the Taraval Captain.
Emil Lawrence discussed concerns regarding actions by police officers and being accused of stealing a computer from the Panda Express. (Copy of letter to Captain Mannix and the Commission submitted) The letter to the Commission states: "January 4, 2011, Chief of Police Police Commission Room 400, City Hall San Francisco, CA 94103 COP & Police Commissioners: SUBJECT: Arrest & and Notice to Appear to SFPD Report 116163855 & Notice to Appear Citation 012234655,and my letter of 01/02/12 to Captain Anne Mannix of the Northern Police Station related to SFPD Badges 127, 804, & 2260 This letter is to be entered into the minutes of this Commission, based on the Sunshine Ordinance and Brown Act. As a resident of this City, I am letting the Commission know that as the facts now stand in this stated incident with the three designated SFPD officers, on the above date, and my claims to their violations law and abuse of State given privileges as officers of the law (badges 127, 804 & 2260) that no citizen of this state or nation should have to go through what I went through, when I gave into their wishes to handcuff me and detain me. Their handling of my detainment was an abuse of power, an authority that they were given, with my consent, to comply with their wishes without any hostility on my part.
Based on my own convictions about the Office of Citizens Complaints, in investigating specific SFPD officer complaints, I am not going to wait for a "failed to
sustain he charges" verdict based on their inability to properly investigate specific police abuse. The office has yet to produce a list requested by me, on multiple occasions, related to SFPD police officers that have multiple OCC complaints filed. Sincerely Emil Lawrence MBA 660 Westfield Road Units 281
‐287 San Francisco, CA 94128"
Clyde discussed concerns regarding handling of two different officer
‐involved shootings.
Maria Bailey, Tenderloin resident, commended officers for taking down criminals. (copy of newspaper article & letter submitted)
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Chief’s Report
‐
Review of recent activities
Chief Suhr talked about recent activities and events for the holiday season and reported on drunk driving arrests made during the holidays. The Chief then gave a brief update on crime statistics. The Chief also reported on a recent suicide behind the Hall of Justice this evening.
b. OCC Director’s Report
‐
Review of recent activities
Director Hicks introduced new OCC Investigator Andrea McKuen. Director Hicks then went on to update the Commission on complaint statistics and mediations.
c. Commission Reports
‐
Commission President’s Report
‐
Commissioners’ Reports
Commissioner Mazzucco talked about recent events attended by the Commission which included a Promotional Ceremony and a Medal of Valor Ceremony honoring Officers Kimberly Koltzoff, Christina Hayes, Charles August, and Rodney Lane. Commissioner Mazzucco also talked about a meeting with Mayor Lee to talk about the budget, a press conference regarding an officer
‐involved shooting, and attending the Officer Bryan Tuvera memorial.
d. Commission Announcements, scheduling of items identified for consideration at future Commission meetings
Preliminary budget discussion in February.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Emil Lawrence discussed concerns about accountability by the Mounted Unit in regards to funds given to them 15 years ago.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO RETROACTIVELY ACCEPT AND EXPEND A $73,000 BOATING SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR THE MARINE UNIT
Sergeant Matthews presented the $73,000 Boating Safety and Enforcement Grant from the California Department of Boating and Waterways to purchase equipment for the Marine Unit.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
Motion by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Chan. Approved 5
‐0.
RESOLUTION NO. 12
‐2
APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO RETROACTIVELY ACCEPT AND EXPEND A $73,000 BOATING SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR THE MARINE UNIT
RESOLVED, that the Police Commission hereby approves the request of the Chief of Police to retroactively accept and expend a $73,000 Boating Safety and Enforcement Grant from the California Department of Boating and Waterways to purchase equipment for the Marine Unit.
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioner DeJesus, Slaughter
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACCEPT, REJECT OR TAKE OTHER ACTION ON A PROPOSED STIPULATED DISPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY CHARGES FILED AGAINST ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA (FILE NO. ALW C11
‐036), OR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO SUSTAIN OR NOT SUSTAIN THOSE DISCIPLILNARY CHARGES AND TO DECIDE PENALTY, IF NECESSARY
Ms. Ashley Worsham, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Department.
Assistant Patrol Special Tachihara was present and represented himself.
(Taken in shorthand form by Ms. Anna Greenley, CSR., Roomian & Associates)
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
HEARING OF ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA, STAR NO. 2511
(FILE NO. ALW C11‐036)
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
Modifying a Duty Vehicle By Adding Additional Emergency Lighting (a violation of Rule 5.07(B) of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
SPECIFICATION NO. 2
Engaging in a Vehicle Pursuit (a violation of Rule 5.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
SPECIFICATION NO. 3
Effecting a Traffic Stop (a violation of Rule 5.02 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
SPECIFICATION NO. 4
Failure to Follow the Proper Procedures for Reporting On and Off Duty (a violation of Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
SPECIFICATION NO. 5
Willfully and Knowingly Being 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).
SPECIFICATION NO. 6
Engaging in Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Patrol Specials (a violation of Rule 4.20 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 represented himself.
The Commission took the matter under submission and the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 12
‐3
DECISION – HEARING OF ASSISTANT PATROL SPECIAL OFFICER ERNEST TACHIHARA
(FILE NO. ALW C11‐036)
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2011, Acting Chief Jeffrey Godown, former Acting 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
Modifying a Duty Vehicle By Adding Additional Emergency Lighting (a violation of Rule 5.07(B) of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants).
(5) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (4) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
(6) On or about December 11, 2010, Sgt. Edward Anzore, Star Number 2086 was on routine patrol in the Central District when he saw the accused driving his personally owned Ford Crown Victoria. Sgt. Anzore could clearly see that the car was equipped with an illuminating solid red forward facing light.
(7) According to Sgt. Anzore, the accused was driving at fast pace and when the accused approached his patrol car, he turned off the illuminating red light.
(8) Sgt. Anzore allowed the accused to pas shim and then directed the accused to pull over.
(9) Sgt. Anzore approached the accused and asked him why he was driving with an illuminating light in his car. The accused stated that he was responding to an officer’s call for assistance. Sgt. Anzore informed the accused that there were no calls for service at that time. The accused then acknowledged that he knew it was a violation of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Specials and their Assistants to have any emergency lighting in their vehicles.
(10) The accused, by knowingly modifying his duty vehicle by adding an illuminating red emergency light, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 5.07(B) 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 5.07(B) of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants, states:
"Rule 5.07(B). VEHICLE MODIFICATION. Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not alter any duty vehicle in any way to allow it to be mistaken for an official law enforcement vehicle, and:
(B) Shall not equip any duty vehicle with any additional emergency lighting equipment or any siren."
SPECIFICATION NO. 2
Engaging in a Vehicle Pursuit (a violation of Rule 5.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
(11) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (10) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
(12) On or about December 21, 2010, Sgt. Alex Takaoka, Star Number 1260, prepared a memorandum to his commanding officer regarding the accused observed conduct on December 20, 2010.
(13) On December 20, 2010, at 2220 hours, the accused was on duty, in uniform and in his personal vehicle travelling east bound on Clay Street approaching Powell. According to the memorandum, the accused was in the Central District to take his meal break.
(14) The accused saw a black Range Rover on Clay Street heading west bound from Powell. Clay Street is one street for east bound traffic. The Range Rover had to quickly turn to avoid colliding "head on" with the accused. The Range Rover continued west bound on Clay Street.
(15) The accused felt the driver posed a public safety hazard and decided to pursue the vehicle. The accused followed the driver of the black Range Rover the wrong way (west bound) on Clay Street and then followed the Range Rover the wrong way (south bound) on Mason Street. The accused followed the Range Rover for approximately five blocks.
(16) At the intersection of Clay Street and Taylor, the accused activated the spot light on his vehicle and shinned it into the Range Rover. The Range Rover pulled over and stopped on Clay, just east of Taylor.
(17) The accused contacted the driver, identified himself as an SFPD Patrol Special Officer, and then ordered the driver to turn off the vehicle and throw the keys out of the window. The driver complied. The accused then ordered the driver and two passengers out of the vehicle. The accused "pat searched" the driver for his safety. At this time, the driver stated that he was "drunk" and the accused radioed dispatch for assistance from an SFPD Unit.
(18) When questioned about his conduct, the accused stated that he was acting to protect the public and felt that flashing his spot light at the driver’s vehicle did not constitute a traffic stop. However, the driver of the car responded to the flashing lights and pulled over.
(19) The accused, by conducting a vehicle pursuit, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 5.04 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 5.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:
"Rule 5.04. Vehicle Pursuits. Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not operate their vehicle in other than a safe and defensive manner, complying fully with the California Vehicle Code. Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not engage in vehicular pursuits."
SPECIFICATION NO. 3
Effecting a Traffic Stop (a violation of Rule 5.02 of the Interim Rules and Procedures 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) The accused, after beginning his pursuit of the driver of the Range Rover, also activated his spot light and shinned it into the vehicle’s rear window in an effort to get the driver to pull over. The driver responded to the light and pulled over.
(22) The accused, by affecting a traffic stop, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 5.02 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 5.02 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:
"Rule 5.02. TRAFFIC STOPS. Patrol Specials and Assistant Patrol Specials shall not make traffic stops."
SPECIFICATION NO. 4
Failure to Follow the Proper Procedures for Reporting On and Off Duty (a violation of Rule 4.25 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and their Assistants);
(23) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (22) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
(24) As part of his investigation, Sgt. Nate Steger of the Internal Affairs Division made two visits to Northern Station in attempt to inspect the accused’s vehicle. On December 29, 2010, Sgt. Steger arrived at 1745 hours and inspected the Patrol Special sign
‐in log. The most recent log page was dated December 28, 2010 and the last entry was made by Patrol Special Byard at 19:30 hours. Sgt. Steger noted that the accused normally signed in at 1800 hours. By 1850, the accused had not arrived and Sgt. Steger left.
(25) Sgt. Steger returned to Northern Station on December 30, 2010 and checked the log book once again. The log showed that Patrol Special Byard made an entry on December 29, 2010 at 19:30 hours. Sgt. Steger noticed that the accused had signed the book on December 29, 2010 at 1930 hours. He also noted that the accused had made two entries after Patrol Special Officer Byard’s entry. One was dated December 28, 2010 at 1800 hours and the other was dated December 29, 2010 at 1800 hours.
(26) When questioned about the failure to sign in on the correct date and at the correct time, the accused stated that he actually starts his shift when he leaves his home and not when he signs the log. The accused stated that he did not sign in on December 28, 2010 because he became involved in an incident near Ellis Street involving some "crazy person." A record check of calls for service in the
Central, Tenderloin, and Northern Districts between 1600 hours and 1900 hours on December 28, 2010 did not reveal any "800" calls that matched the description and time frame given by the accused.
(27) The accused, by failing to follow the proper procedures for reporting on and off duty, engaged in conduct that reflects discredit upon the Department in violation of Rule 4.25 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 4.25 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:
"4.25. PROCEDURES FOR REPORTING ON AND OFF DUTY.
Each day they work their beat(s), all Patrol Specials and Assistants shall report on and off duty in person to the Platoon Commander of the district to which they are primarily designated and sign in and out of the log book. If they are scheduled to work multiple beats in multiple districts during the same shifts, they shall minimally notify the station keeper(s) of the other affected district(s) that they are on duty after making the initial notification in their primary district."
SPECIFICATION NO. 5
Willfully and Knowingly Being 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).
(28) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (27) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
(29) During his contact with Sgt. Anzore, the accused was questioned about the red emergency light that had been added to his vehicle. In his statement to Sgt. Anzore, which Sgt. Anzore noted in his memorandum to his Commanding Officer, the accused stated that he used the vehicle for part time work with the U.S. Marshall’s Service.
(30) On January 12, 2011, Sgt. Nate Steger, from IAD, interviewed the accused regarding his conduct. During this interview the accused denied that he told Sgt. Anzore that he also worked for the U.S. Marshall’s Service. Despite this denial, the accused did admit that he has told people in the past that he is associated with the U.S. Marshall’s Service and the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington D.C.
(31) Sgt. Steger repeatedly asked the accused about his service in each agency and the accused responded with vague and non
‐responsive answers. The accused was asked about his length of service for each agency and the accused responded by saying, "It’s in my background folder." The accused also failed to answer questions regarding his alleged retirement from these agencies.
(32) Sgt. Steger described the accused as untruthful, evasive, and or inconsistent when answering several of his questions. The accused, by willfully and knowingly being evasive during his interview with IAD, violated Rule 4.04 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 4.04 of the Interim Rules and Procedures 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."
SPECIFICATION NO. 6
Engaging in Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Patrol Specials (a violation of Rule 4.20 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants).
(33) The allegations incorporated in paragraphs (1) through (32) are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
(34) The accused, by modifying his duty vehicle, by engaging in a traffic pursuit and affecting a traffic stop, and by failing to follow proper procedures regarding the sign
‐in log, engaged in conduct unbecoming an Assistant Patrol Special Officer. His actions brought discredit to the Department in violation of Rule 4.20 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 4.20 of the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, states:
"4.20. CONDUCT. Any conduct by a Patrol Special Officer or an Assistant while on patrol which constitutes a beach 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."
PENALTIES
:
(35) 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 June 21, 2011, October 17, 2011, December 7, 2011, and on January 4, 2012, the matter was submitted to the Police Commission for decision; and
WHEREAS, the Commission decided the following:
SPECIFICATION NO. 1
‐ Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
SPECIFICATION NO. 2
‐ Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
SPECIFICATION NO. 3
‐ Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
SPECIFICATION NO. 4
‐ Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Turman
NAYS: Commissioner Kingsley
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
SPECIFICATION NO. 5
‐ Not Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Kingsley
NAYS: Commissioners Chan, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
SPECIFICATION NO. 6
‐ Sustained
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Kingsley, Turman
NAYS: Commissioner Chan
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
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 Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara be suspended from the Patrol Special Program without compensation for thirty (30) calendar days. The suspension shall commence on Wednesday, February 15, 2012, at 0001 hours, and end on Thursday, March 15, 2012, at 2400 hours. Assistant Patrol Special Officer Tachihara shall not perform or provide any Patrol Special Officer Program services, directly or indirectly, during the period of suspension. Assistant Patrol Special Officer Tachihara shall not receive paid leave or any other form of compensation or payment for any work performed or provided under the Patrol Special Officer Program, directly or indirectly, for the period of suspension. The Commission further orders Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara receive a two hour retraining arranged by the Department on the Interim Rules and Procedures for Patrol Special Officers and Their Assistants, and shall answer a 10
‐question test on those Rules and Procedures. Assistant Patrol Special Officer Tachihara shall complete that training by March 15, 2012.
(These proceedings were taken in shorthand form by Ms. Anna Greenley, CSR, Roomian & Associates)
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION
None
VOTE ON WHETHER TO HOLD CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Commissioner Marshall, second by Commissioner Kingsley. Approved 5
‐0.
CLOSED SESSION
(7:15 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Chief of Police
Review of findings and Chief’s decision to return officer to duty following officer
‐involved shooting (OIS Case Nos. 11‐007 and 11‐008)
(PRESENT: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Slaughter, Turman, Lieutenant Falvey, Risa Tom, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Deputy City Attorney Porter, Lt. Yick, Sgt. Nevin, Sgt. Juarez, Sgt. Frankel)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Existing Litigation
Timothy Hoyt v. CCSF, et al.,
U.S. District Court Case No. CV
‐10‐01778, filed 5/4/10; Discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve recommended settlement in the action or to take other action.
(PRESENT: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Slaughter, Turman, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Deputy City Attorney Porter, Lieutenant Falvey, Risa Tom)
Motion by Commissioner Mazzucco, second by Commissioner Kingsley. Approved 6
‐0.
RESOLUTION NO. 12
‐4
TIMOTHY HOYT v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.
RESOLVED, that the recommendation of the City Attorney for settlement in the litigation of ATimothy Hoyt v. City and County of San Francisco, et al.,@ in U.S. District Court, Case No. CV1001778 RS, be, and the same is hereby approved.
Date of Incident: January 3, 2010
AYES: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Turman
ABSENT: Commissioners DeJesus, Slaughter
PERSONNEL EXCEPTION: Status and calendaring of pending disciplinary cases
(PRESENT: Commissioners Mazzucco, Marshall, Chan, Kingsley, Slaughter, Turman, Lieutenant Falvey, Risa Tom, Chief Suhr, Commander Tomioka, Deputy City Attorney Porter)
VOTE TO ELECT WHETHER TO DISCLOSE ANY OR ALL DISCUSSION HELD IN CLOSED SESSION
Motion by Commissioner Mazzucco, second by Commissioner Marshall for non disclosure. Approved 6
‐0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Mazzucco to adjourn the meeting in honor of Lieutenant Falvey and his promotion to Captain, second by Commissioner Chan. Approved 6
‐0
Thereafter, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
_________________________________________
Inspector John Monroe
Secretary
San Francisco Police Commission
1345/rct
