management. the attorney, who brings forth the material, for transparency purposes, we have a retired judge who sits on the panel and lends legal credence. right now, we are using a retired court of appeals justice who himself is a former police commissioner. the function of the committee -- date book at the material and determined that a member may have passed history that requires a legal notification to the da > the forward that to the chief. we sent a written note -- a written notification to the member, who has 15 days to respond with mitigating factors or material the committee can review. if we do not receive those, the relevant names and dates of the offense, or the material, is forwarded to the district attorney. if we do receive a response, the

committee reconvenes, reviews the summary with any new material, and towards the recommendation to the police for referral. this allows the district attorney to comply with the legal mandates under brady but protect the rights of the personal members who legal firearms -- whose legal files are protected. this system -- has been considered a model. we have been asked by other jurisdictions for a copy. they are wrestling with the same issue. so far, we have not received any challenge or complaints. the court are currently reviewing records consistent with the protocol up there in camera proceedings. we meet with the day at least on a weekly basis. they are satisfied with the protocol and. any changes to this protocol will likely require a further meet and confer with the bigger -- with the labor organizations. our brady work is not finished.

this was round one. the second round is numb being set. that will discuss workplace options for those who have material in their background. we can discuss or the employee will work, earning opportunities, and recognize this might have a psychological impact on the members who are affected. we did the initial rollout in august. we are going to look at this for one year, at which point we are going to do a lessons learned. stakeholders will reconvene and make any changes as deemed necessary. we are certainly prepared or able to come back and give that lessons learned to this panel. that is the conclusion of my presentation. i welcome any questions you might have. vice president mazzucco: i would like to think the chief. i have spent a lot of time with this.

it is comprehensive. it addresses the questions we need to address. that is the constitutional right to the accused to know if there is anything in a police officer or civilian background that might have a direct impact on the trial. it also protect the rights of the police officers. i want to commend you. a lot of work and effort went into this. i commend the poa. it is a comprehensive document. it is well done. i heard you say you're getting requests from other police agencies for this document? how many have you received? >> i have personally only received one up from san mateo county. they have convened a panel and asked me to speak with them, which i did earlier today, on the implementation and the protocol. they took copious notes. i think they're going to be going along the same lines. vice president mazzucco: in

looking to this document, i think it is very thorough. maybe a little too thorough, but that is the best way to be. i prefer that. you said earlier there have been no complaints from the court, nor from the defense bar. how long as the order been in place? >> it came out august 13. as of monday, we had four separate in-camera hearings. the judge ruled that none of the material was to be disclosed in one case. in the other, he said there should be. >> there has only been one order of disclosure? -- vice president mazzucco: there has only been one order of disclosure? once you make a decision and your committee makes a decision, including justice harry lowe, who was a great judge in police commissioner -- once your committee has reviewed the

personnel file, then you turn it over to the district attorney's office and date request and in- camera review with the court. that is where the court looks at this in a vacuum and says, "this officer had an issue eight years or nine years ago. how is this relevant to his or her testimony today about the witness out on the street?" the judge makes the final decision whether this should be disclosed. it is important for the public to understand that a judge looks at it and says whether it is relevant and material. i think you have put together a good product here, an excellent product. i think it guarantees the officer rights are protected and that the accused -- it is very important that they get a fair trial, too. it is good to hear it is working well at this point.

>> thank you. commissioner kingsley: thank you for your presentation. i, too, was impressed by the bureau order. it seemed reasonable, fair, clear, and easily understandable, and to cover all bases. i did have a couple questions. this question actually is for the opinion of the commissioners, the police chief, and the director as well. i would be interested in feedback on this. in cases where there is an open or pending disciplinary case against an officer, but no determination has been made, on the specifications, what is your opinion in terms of holding up the hearing and submitting the case to the brady committee for

a determination whether or not there is a brady issue before going ahead with the hearing? in reading of this order, i did not really see that hit had on that i understood. it might be in there, but i was not quite sure. >> there is no reason to hold up the hearing. the way the protocol is set up is that the minute the charges are filed at the chief level or commission level, that triggers the protocol to become in effect? the beauty of the way this is set up is that if it is adjudicated, and is adjudicated in the officer's favor, the attorney can notify [unintelligible] they will conduct that review and possibly remove that person. commissioner kingsley: in terms

of the attorneys that are representing an officer that is involved in a disciplinary case, there is not really a basis for continuing the case if the attorney is saying we want to know whether these charges involve brady material before we can engage in conversations with the department or otherwise. >> do you mean delaying the criminal case? i am trying to understand your question. discipline hearings? commissioner kingsley: in disciplinary hearing, yes. >> that may be a tactic they want to do, but it is not a requirement. commissioner kingsley: thank you. just a follow up to that. how frequently does the committee meet? >> we are trying to meet every two weeks. we have tried to get it sooner, but summer schedule has been putting a damper on that.

we are going to be meeting twice more in september, definitely, and going over the materials we have. >> if you received an officer's opinion that they disagree with your findings that brady applies, and they submit that again to your committee, how long would it take the committee to reconsider and make a decision again? >> that is calendar before the next meeting, whenever that is set -- that is calendared for the next meeting, whenever that is set. commissioner dejesus: i am looking at this bulletin. it looks as though the district attorney is going to maintain a list of what they believe our department personnel -- are

personnel identified with brady material. i assume this will be an ongoing list. is that accurate? >> i would not know that for a fact, but i believe that is the case. commissioner dejesus: it says that in the bulletin, that they are going to have a list. i saw it in here somewhere that there is going to be a list. it is under c3. the department is aware of that there will be a list of department employees with potential brady material in their files. is there a perpetual list? >> i believe it will be, yes. commissioner dejesus: it says the department shall retain a retired judge. when you say retained, is the department actually paying a retired judge to sit on a

committee, or will it be a volunteer basis? >> right now, it has been voluntary. we are looking and budgeting that for the next fiscal year. the justice has graciously volunteered his time. >commissioner dejesus: we would anticipate seeing a budget item on this? >> i believe so. that has been the discussion right now. commissioner dejesus: looking at the procedure, i understand that for the recommendation that is made to the chief of police, the committee will send a letter to the affected employees, and will have an opportunity to submit written information within 15 calendar days as to why the conduct identified does not constitute brady material. so the officers can't give information to the committee before it goes to the chief to prevent things from going on the list? >> that is correct. commissioner dejesus: do you

foresee an attorney being involved in terms of the officer? >> we already have. commissioner dejesus: i am sorry? >> we have received a couple of explanations from the attorney. commissioner dejesus: i also notice under b that if the officer later successfully appealed the finding of misconduct to a court the department will notify the district attorney of any court order. i guess i want to envision this a little bit more. you are envisioning the name being turned over, and if the order gets overturned by the court, they are notified. i am thinking of the reverse. if the officer gets an injunction against the department and litigates that issue, i am concerned. i know on a no-time waiver we

have 60 days to go to trial on a felony. i wonder how this committee foresees that, if the officer goes and gets an injunction on a current case that is pending that has possible brady material. you're going against due process timeline for a criminal defendant. how are you going to deal with that? >> i do not think we have discussed that at length. we clearly have to honor the judge's order and go from there. commissioner dejesus: i guess, just going backward, looking at the policy, you are setting it up so the officer has the possibility of coming in with a lawyer to keep the name from going forward, and withholding the name for 15 days. i think that might be an issue we have to go back and look at. i know you worked with a lot of people, but i am concerned with these time limits in a criminal

case. brady is very important for criminal case due process. we should know if that is happening. we would have to go back and reevaluate this policy to see whether or not there is a better way to do that. >> that is the beauty of this. we have put this together with this initial rollout for a one- year review. if things like that come up, that is something that will allow us to take a look at this policy and revamp it. commissioner dejesus: i know you said some criteria in terms of character dishonesty, bias, statements that are inconsistent. that carries the evidence held and other things. i guess i need a little clarification on c2, where it talks about before the department notified the district attorney's office. the committee can determine the seriousness of the misconduct,

the strength of the evidence, and whether its is under brady. i wonder what the gray area is. i imagine any felony conviction is an automatic brady. i think there are some absolutes. what is the gray area of the committee is going to make a determination of whether or not it is a violation? does it make sense? >> i am not sure if i am the best one to answer it, not being an attorney. that is why we have the retired justice and other attorneys on the panel. i know we are looking at moral turpitude crime. not every felony is a moral turpitude crime. commissioner dejesus: it is not just felonies. i mentioned honesty and veracity. maybe that is up to interpretation. perhaps bias is subject to interpretation. inconsistent statements with testimony provided is black and

white. i would feel more comfortable if there were clear guidelines that this is an absolute, and again defying the gray area that gives the discretion to sit there and decide whether or not they will notify the district attorney of a person's name. i think i would like to see it really clear, what that is. >> on c3, i am looking at -- the pages are not numbered. under the brady material, one and to have to do with administrative matters. three is the arrest and conviction. that might answer questions somewhat. any arrest conviction -- and the arrest, conviction, or felony charge for a moral turpitude response is brady. the language you were looking

at was administrative conduct. >commissioner dejesus: it does not say that is automatically turned over. i do see the distinction in c. maybe that is the distinction of civilian personnel files. that is the heading -- civilian personnel files. >> i think that language is in both. commissioner dejesus: you are right. it is in both. >> i think when there is charges filed but they have not been sustained, there is a worrying that is done of the seriousness and the strength of the evidence to decide if it is not fully determined. commissioner dejesus: misconduct charges are filed for a felony conviction for theft. that seems like a no-bring a. that covers moral turpitude.

does that fall into the area where the committee will weigh in? >> the balancing is only under administrative matters that have not been adjudicated. >> we're talking about felony convictions of moral turpitude. it is my understanding a police officer cannot be a police officer with a felony conviction because they are not able to carry a firearm under the laws of california and the united states code. commissioner dejesus: it is more of a misdemeanor shoplifting case? charges are filed, but you have a misdemeanor case pending? that will go to a committee and the committee will decide whether that is moral turpitude? and are there guidelines for moral turpitude? would they use a case at a time to talk about what that is? >> i do not know about that aspect of how the committee works. commissioner dejesus: they do

mention people versus wheeler, which establishes criminal conduct including misdemeanors. i guess the real issue is it remains to be seen how much litigation this order may draw in terms of the way it is set up in the notification procedures. that remains to be seen. if it becomes a road block, we will have to come back and look at this. commissioner hammer: i want to thank you for your work. he is not here today, but his name is on it. i want to acknowledge the chief, who i have known for over 10 years. he is an honorable, great police officer. i know he did a lot of work. i want to back up into the big picture questions. i have two areas.

one is to get a feel for how far we are. secondly, at some point it is going to affect our ability to deploy police officers on the street. if we had officers the committed surgeon misconduct, that is part of this. i have read the document. it is a model one. nine months ago, we were behind the curve. now we are a little ahead of the curve. that is a good place to be. as we begin today, has the department gone through every pending criminal case and seen if our officers have brady material? >> we have concluded our review of past criminal cases. commissioner hammer: so every criminal case in the hall of justice, the department has reviewed those, and found whether officers have brady material? >> we have done current and past

cases. commissioner hammer: commissioner mazzucco asked about numbers. what frame of time is that? >> i could not tell you. commissioner hammer: in a month or so? >> within the time. of this. commissioner hammer: since you have been working on this project, can you tell us about how many names the department has turned over to the district attorney's office? >> we have had multiple meetings. i have not been at all the meetings. commissioner hammer: do you have a range just to give a feel? >> i would say 10 and 15 that we have looked at. out of those, i could not tell you how many we turned over. commissioner hammer: that is over? >> since august. commissioner hammer: since we

have been doing this, we have done the current cases, the most pressing ones at the hall of justice. the dna has to ask a judge. how far have we gone into a store "cases to see whether the department messed up and did not turn something over, or the d.a. did not ask for it. how far back have we gone? >> we did not go back into any adjudicated cases. we did a 30-year historical review of the officers' history. those names are being turned over to the district attorney as people who may have something in their background. we are not looking at a case that was adjudicated four years ago. commissioner hammer: so are you saying we have looked at all of the police officers we have, and gone 30 years back? >> correct.

commissioner hammer: we have gone to our entire roster and run every potential thing by this committee? >> we are still continuing to run through the brady. we have handled all the criminal matters. commissioner hammer: meaning criminal convictions, criminal arrests? for every current police officer, you have gone back 30 years, for every potential criminal matter? what we are into now are things that were sustained or filed findings, correct? >> the administrative portion. commissioner hammer: how far are you in that process? are we roughly through have? >> i could not tell you what the percentage is. risk management is the one that brings the summaries for board. i could not tell you how many more we have to go. we set the time when for the panel. we review cases. i do not have any type of gas. commissioner hammer: do we have

a rough idea of how long it will take to finish the process? >> our projection is the end of october, but very light. it may happen by the end of september. commissioner hammer: may be the chief wants to end this. an issue we have talked about a little bit -- first of all, if we get this wrong, people go free, right? that is why this is so important. as the police department, we have to play fair. we have to turn over stuff that will help our case and hurt our case. that is the way it works. we have to show or bad cards as well as are good cards. people may not know that, but that is our obligation, is to play fair like that. my question is do we have a feel now for how many officers, so far, we know are not going to be able to work the streets because

of credibility issues? >> not at all. i do not know of any of them. commissioner hammer: none? do you concur with that shift? it is something we have talked about in terms of discipline. it would be a good surprised if that is the case. >> the review process -- officers, as we start looking at them, they are given an opportunity to respond. we took four cases recently. the court determined that only one had relevant conduct that would be revealed. this process, frankly, is going to take some time before we flush out all the stuff. i believe the majority of the cases, which i do not think will be a lot of cases, are going to be situational. one court may say it is relevant and the other may say it is not. commissioner hammer: they will

be close calls. >> there will be a very small percentage where everyone will agree it is a bright-line case of concern. that is why it is so important that we go to phase two, which is we have identified people that have a problem. how do you deal with the problem? that will have to be a tiered process. there are people that will be situational. there are people that may be a problem forever. others may be for a certain period of time. we have to do that with the poa. commissioner hammer: it is definitely an ongoing process. the documents indicate that the next of which are going to enter into is -- if you can tell us today -- you are the chief -- how many officers do you have that you cannot put on the street because they have credibility problems? >> i do not have that number.

we have had a number of officers that have been kept out of the streets for years. you have adjudicated some of those cases and kept them on the payroll. we have some who have been away from the streets and will continue to be for many years. i can get you that number before the next meeting. i do not have it. we do have some people that even this commission fully understands, that by the decision of the commission, these people will be off the streets their entire careers. commissioner hammer: the reason i asked -- a recent complaint signed by you seeks termination.

the ability to testify as a witness for a potential job function for each and every sworn function in this department. for this reason, the accused's conduct has made him unable to perform the essential functions of a peace officer, and therefore termination is sought. >> we understood that the commission would understand when someone has a credibility issue. now we want to put it clearly on the record. if you sustain the allegations, and you keep the employee, the employee is not going to walk the streets. on the other hand, if you don't, the officer should be deem

deemed to be not guilty and he should go back to the street. there has been a lot of confusion. commissioner hammer: i voted on a dace -- i went with your recommendation. at the end of the day, that's what you recommended, but we can't get the cases, because they are confidential. i know a particular case that you recommended it. but i think it is good, chief, to lay it out what your position is. if you have an officer that you believe has testified untruthably or said something untruthfully, that that person is not fit to be a police officer. my bright lines are, if an officer uses excessive force against citizens, he or she shouldn't be a cop. everything else, we talk about. those two things are at least the bright-line rules for me. i'd be interested, i