if we could make note of that. i want to talk about exhibits. the reason i want to talk about exhibits, because you may try to use them now. i have not seen any addition to these additional exhibits from the sheriff. join have an understanding that 50, 78, 79, 80, 83 are stipulated? >> right. >> ok, great. there is an objection to the sheriff's case. i tend to agree with the mayor. if you want to cite a case, you can cite it in a brief. i would recommend that sustained

the objection to the sheriff additional exhibit. >> i would like to speak to that. i did not jump in when you discuss this. the reason why we believe that situation or the formal dish returning. it is clear from the history of san francisco that the sheriff has willfully defied a court order and not been sanctioned.

ada has been elected and served. we think that that is highly relevant and appropriate to the official misconduct in the city of san francisco. >> are there any comments about to be a disability of this exhibit -- about a the in admissibility of this exhibit. >> the amended language of the official misconduct portion of the charter is unconstitutionally waived. the decency, right action expected of all public officers. our contention is that official misconduct remains what it has always been in san francisco and at -- as it has been described

in case law. >> under a different standard of the city charter though, right? >> well, not exactly. the original language of official misconduct remains and then this extra purposes is grafted onto it in the 1995 amendment. >> this was not in play in the time of the case. >> our position is that the extra parts should not be considered. you might not agree with me, but if we are right, and, if off the death flushed the line you might agree with me, but if we are rough -- you might not agree with me, but if we are right.

>> so, this portion is excluded. ok. the next item is the testimony of the sheriff. before he comes up, can you give us a time estimate of how long you would examine him. >> in total, if it is hard to say without knowing how to first floors of the exam goes. if i don't think i will finish tonight. if i can say that much. >> ok, will the sheriff please come and sit in the chair closest to the commission. thank you, sir. we will have the court reporters where you live in.

>> the sheriff is the chief of a law-enforcement agency, correct? >> for correct. >> the sheriff oversees 800 deputies? >> correct. >> the sheriff overseas off 100 deputies. >> correct. >> the budget is more than $174 million. >> i believe so. >> you maintain security of the court? >> correct. >> i am inclined to overrule the objection. i think it is foundational.

for now, i will overruled that objection. >> the sheriff provides the security. >> yes. >> the sheriff oversees the jails. >> yes. >> at any given time, there is approximately 1500 prisoners. >> even more, yes. >> and the sheriff is responsible for the safety and security of those prisoners 24 hours a day? >> in the staff that works in the jails as well. >> it is the sheriff responsibility to make sure that all prisoners have been imprisoned according to the requirements of the law? >> if a prisoner is not in prison according to the requirements of the law, then a false imprisonment has occurred, correct?

if the sheriff has been imprisoned a prisoner in violation of legal requirements, then that is a false in prison in, right? >> objection. >> foi would rephrase. when a prisoner comes to the jail, he is turned over to the custody of the sheriff's deputies and they have to book him into custody. they have to ensure that he is released at the appropriate time. >> he or she, yes. >> if that does not occur, then the incarceration becomes illegal, does it not? >> that depends.

>> a sheriff has to work as a peer with other law enforcement leaders. >> yes. >> as an equal with the chief of police? >> yes. >> as an evil with the chief of the san francisco probation department. >> -- as an equal with the chief of the san francisco probation department. >> yes. >> you will be on probation? >> i believe so. >> you will be under the supervision of the adult probation department. >> i believe so. >> there must be recommendations on whether or not you're performing the duties correctly. >> i believe so.

>> the sheriff has to work as a colleague with the san francisco superior court. >> yes. >> we discussed how the sheriff provide security for the court. they're responsible for executing court orders? >> you are required to appear in the superior court for probation hearings. as a resort -- a result of your conviction, you have to stay away order. >> yes. >> you cannot have a firearm under your possession or control? >> yes. >> the sheriff department has written standards of professional conduct. >> yes. >> those are in writing? >> yes. >> they apply to every deputy in

the department, correct? >> yes. >> if the deputy does not meet the written standards of conduct, he can face discipline, correct? >> yes, possibly. >> who makes that decision? >> there is a chain of command and that depends on the nature of the offense. >> who has the authority to suspend a deputy? >> the ultimate authority would be the sheriff but it is not uncommon for the under sheriff to render disciplined. >> is the sheriff is the only person that could suspend the deputy? >> circumstantial. >> is the sheriff to a live person in the apartment that contaminate the sheriff? >> yes.

>> it do the written standards apply to the sheriff himself? >> i believe so, yes. >> and in a larger sense, shouldn't be sheriff fleet the department by example? >> yes. >> everyone should be able to look to the sheriff for an example, correct? >> yes. >> they should be able to look to the sheriff to exercise good judgment? >> yes. >> everyone should expect the sheriff to exert self control? >> yes. >> everyone should expect a deputy to refrain from using his power? >> yes. >> every deputy should expect to sheriff not to commit a crime? >> yes. >> so, sheriff, i want to turn to some of those written rules and regulations. this is mayor's exhibit 13.

>> if you have copies, that would be helpful. we have lots of briefs. the buckley we would expect a binder provided by the parties or that you handed out. -- typically, we would expect a binder provided by the parties. i can have them brought over tomorrow. in the meantime, i do have copies. they are in order. we will just have to break up the copies. >> that's fine. >>we investigated as to whethere could get you a microphone and there is just no suitable microphone for you. so, if you would not mind speaking loudly when you make an objection.

>> before you have a copy of exhibit 14, that is the copy of the employees of rules and regulations. there is a section there, section 2.1 called a standard of conduct, this is on page 4.

so come up sheriff, the standard of conduct status. this is 2.1. the employees shall conduct their private and professional lives and such a manner as to avoid bringing the department into disrepute tend to of flux that is what it says, correct. >> at what a law enforcement officer does of duty is important, correct? >> yes. >> it is important to because it reflects upon the whole profession. does it reflect poorly on the whole department of one deputy is not up to standards? >> it can't. >> what about a lieutenant?

>> it can, yes. >> what about a captain? >> what about -- >> it can, yes. >> what about the sheriff? >> it can, yes. >> in your opinion, when the sheriff is not live up to standards, this can reflect poorly on the department? >> yes, it can. i think that the sheriff is the leader of the department and should lead by example and if that also means that the sheriff can demonstrate redeeming behavior, then the sheriff or some other employees may have that possibility.

>> sir, when you turn to page 8 of the document, there is a definition of misconduct. do you see that? >> section a, the definition of misconduct for the sheriff's department includes conviction of any felony or misdemeanor. >> yes, i see that. >> you fell below the standard. >> yes, i pled to a misdemeanor, yes. >> do you think that when you plead to a misdemeanor, you don't get convicted? >> know. >> so, you have been convicted of a misdemeanor.

>> i pled to a misdemeanor. >> that is not what i asked. were you convicted of a misdemeanor? >> objection. >> he has not answered the question. >> yes. >> and that falls below the standards of conduct of the sheriff's department. >> it can, yes. >> are their some convictions that fall below the standards? >> not pertinent to your question. >> are there any that are its usable? >> not according to this definition. >> well, this is the sheriff's department's definition. are you above the policies? >> know. -- no. >> now, looking at item c under

the definition of misconduct, conduct on or off duty unbecoming to a deputy. there is a notation there forsworn personnel. that is someone who is a peace officer in the state of california. that is someone who is a peace officer in the state of california? >> correct. >> so, sworn personnel are held to that high standard of having their off-duty conduct measured as part of whether they are meeting job standards. is that correct? >> correct. >> there are some examples listed here of what constitutes misconduct in the sense of conduct unbecoming to a deputy. the first example is an arrest,

correct? >> yes. >> so, you were arrested? >> yes. >> it can happen that a person can be arrested but not have committed an offense? >> correct. >> in your case, you were arrested and you committed an offense? >> i pled. >> are you disputing that you did not commit a criminal act? >> know. >> so, you committed a criminal act? >> yes. >> you fell below that standard? >> yes. >> of the sheriff has stipulated to a plea for a misdemeanor violation. this line of questioning is asking the sheriff to have legal

conclusions. >> the procedure i would like to imply with objections is object, state your basis, and if i or other members request argument, we certainly will. i will sustain the objection because i think we have gone over it. >> item d, under misconduct. these of the standards that apply to the department and you. the contract on or off duty would affect adversely on the san francisco sheriff apart it would be considered to be misconduct. >> that is what it says. >> objection on the same grounds.

>> no question is pending. >> does this reflect poorly on the sheriff department? >> yes. >> list turn to a little later in the same document, a civic 13. let's turn to section 9.5. >> so, this section is entitled, departmental investigation cooperation. employees are required to actively and courteously cooperate when questioned by a competent authority in an investigation conducted by our

agency or others. when the san francisco police department was investigating you, did you agree to be questioned by them? >> objection. not relevant. >> i'm not clear why it is relevant. why don't you establish some foundation?

>> sheriff, could you turn to section 1 of this document? >> page 1. >> yes. >> there is a definition of the employee there, 1.5. this is the same as department personnel. looking at 1.4, "any person who receives a salary or wage which is paid either by or through the san francisco sheriff department, regardless of the source of funds, four sources

rendered by the department." did you get a salary when you were the sheriff? >> yes. >> can you turn back to the section about the criminal investigations? -- about the department investigations? we have the list of requirements said employees are required to follow when there is an ongoing investigation. section d, give answers that are clear, responsive, an ambiguous, and most accurately reflect the truth of the matter. do you see that? >> yes. >> do you it knowledge that you

had a responsibility to do just that? -- do you acknowledge that you had a responsibility to do just that? >> yes. >> now, looking at page 21, the next page. another one of the rules of conduct. "employees are required to be truthful at all times, whether under oath or not." possess that apply to u.s. sheriff? >> yes. -- does that standard apply to u.s. sheriff? >> yes.

>> you are required to participate in counseling, correct? >> correct. >> specifically, you must participate in domestic violence counseling. >> yes. >> this is also called a batterer's program. >> objection. >> sustained. >> so, when you go to these domestic violence counseling classes, do you learn anything? >> objection, vague. >> do you understand the question, sheriff? >> i do, profoundly. >> one of the things that you learn is that you cannot make excuses for violence. >> correct.

>> you cannot minimize your own acts of violence. >> absolutely. >> and you learned that a person who is a batterer cannot rehabilitate himself overnight. >> i agree. >> in your domestic violence program, you are being taught that you cannot blame the victim for your own acts of violence. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> yes. >> if you learn that domestic violence is an abuse of power. >> yes. >> and you must take responsibility. >> agreed. >> any of these principles that we just discussed, do you

disagree with any of them? >> i do not disagree with any of them. >> what about what is taught in be batterer's program? >> objection, relevance. >> i were -- i wioverrule that. you may answer, sheriff. >> i do not disagree with any of it. >> sheriff, you committed an act of violence on september 31st, didn't you? >> objection, foundation. >> the foundational objection is overruled. >> i grabbed my wife's arm and bruce did, that is an act of violence, yes. something i