July 11, 2012

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

(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 "off‐list" 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 "Off‐list" 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 non‐law enforcement individuals. Currently there are no Penal Code Statutes that criminalize the act of purchasing an "Off‐list" 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:

‐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:

(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 "Off‐list" 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 "Off‐list" 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 fifteen‐round magazine and in order to sell the same weapon to the general public, the firearm could only have a ten‐round 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:

‐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:

‐ 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.