want to read this again. capt. bruce said the duties include him carrying his video camera at any time and taking whatever video he felt was appropriate. he said he a blanket authorization to use police vehicles and implicitly have the authority to use the videos. you cannot ignore these ducks. -- these facts. if you do not, you denied that there was authorization. -- new tonight -- you deny that there was authorization. again, specification number

four, courtesy and respect. there were no witnesses to testify to this specification. if you ignore that fact, you are violating his constitutional rights of due process. so he can cross-examine those witnesses. you just cannot bring an investigator who was not there when the video was made, who had no direct knowledge of anything. he had no direct knowledge of anything. he said that he was regurgitating what was in the report, which is not fair to officer lewis. the last is the harassment charge. not one witness was produced. no investigation, nothing. commissioner: thank you.

>> i also believe i am not able to completely state my position. you only gave me five minutes to state my position when this case has been going on for five years, so i just want this to reflect that. commissioner: understand that. >> in order to make this as short as possible, a report of vote -- point out that what you have just heard, -- i would point note -- point out that providing authorization or note -- or not, i do not know why it would be any different. same facts, same evidence, same arguments. with respect to the challenges to specifications one, leaving

his assignment, and two, attention to duty, the main witness to all of those was officer lewis himself, who admitted, in fact, he had left his assignment and went into another district, and he also admitted he was on duty during this this of videos that we listed in our closing arguments, so i do not think there is really any contested fact there really. korea open to answering any questions you may have of about the motion to dismiss. commissioner -- i am open to answering any questions. commissioner: i think we need to make the record clear that each of us does not only read the motion but the transcripts a seceded withy -- transcript associated with the lewis case.

commissioner: i would move we go to closed session. secretary: we want to make one comment. with respect to the arguments that the defense did not have an opportunity to put on evidence or witnesses that the record is clear from the transcript that the defense was given ample opportunity, and the defense chose to assert legal objections rather than to put on evidence at that time, and i wanted to that to be clear to the public.

let's move on now to hear the arguments on whether to sustain or not sustain this. if you prefer to go first, if you can. if you prefer he have his five minutes first, i will leave the up to you. ok, five minutes. >> commissioners, the arguments in this case are very similar to those before. he injured -- he confessed. -- admitted to those in his testimony. commissioner: can you describe the differences?

>> specification and one is only for one video, which is the i am not a dog video, which is a mota of. -- montage. he left the district. he left the bayview district and went to another part of the city. that is a separate violation from in attention to duty. if you sleep in your patrol car on duty, you are in violation of specification number two. hong if you are listening to your radio in and are available to calls but choose to go to the district next door to do whatever it is you want to do in the district next door, you have violated number one. separate behavior. i would say that specification number one is probably not the most important one, but it is no question that they would leave

there without permission. i wanted to touch briefly on specifications three, four, and five. this relates to the behavior on video, and i think one of the things that is important is his conduct on video is, i think, substantially more egregious than what you saw officer

>> while the commission was in closed session, we distributed on each of the specifications -- deliberated on ian: of the specification and voted as follows. with respect to specification number one, the video titled i am not a doggings specification was sustained 5-0. specification number two, steaped 5-0. specification number three. eight videos involved. sustained 5-0. specification number four, there were two videos involved. sustained 5-0.

specification number five, there were six videos involved, not sustained. two votes. in favor, sustained, three votes opposed. so we'll now move into the penalty phase with respect to the specifications that were sustained. i'm sorry. it is getting late. i can't remember how -- who went first last time. i think we ought to have the department -- five minutes. >> the issues here with respect to penalty are very similar to the issues that you saw in previous case with officer -- one of the things a makes officer lewis' case distinguishable from hers which justifies a higher penalty in his case is he has been with the department much longer. she had been the department only 10. there is an argument to be made that he had a relationship with

officer cohen that put him at more distance. she was engaged to cohen. lewis was just an old friend so there are a lot of reasons to believe that officer lewis should vfed more impaschality, to behave in a manner that reflected good judgment. that said, his behavior shows worst judgment than hurley's case. he is involved in a greater number of videos. he comes it with more material himself and his cutting in those videos is more outrageous than what that that you see with respect to hurley. particularly on the nine videos. to really -- it is really very over the top material. over the course of a year and a half, he thought this was great fun. there is no indication at any point he thought this was a bad idea. it is clear he thought this was going to be a retirement party.

he thinks he has done nothing wrong. in that regard, i think because his conduct is more severe than hurley in the videos, his penalty should be higher. than hers. in particular, i think one of the things that you need to take it is the way in which -- take into account is the way in which he chose to take things that happened in the videos and put them up to an even higher level and make them more outrageous than previously done. he puts on a dress for the charlie's angel video. he goes to the great lengths of licking the camera. the watermelon scene, he didn't know that was about to be scene. he makes the joke about the water melon being straight from the white people even though he is the one being insulted from the african-americans using this watermelon reference. so he chooses to make the

behavior more outrageous than what was originally planned. for all of those reasons we believed that in officer lewis' case the penalty ought to be termination. he may have had a good record prior in his career. now he has clearly indicated he is no longer exercises the good judgment we expect in an officer. he doesn't have the ability to -- work with our diverse community or frankly that at this point he associates with people that are going to help him get back on track. you're going to hear the same thing here about officer lewis. i think that is a problem. that is a real problem. it shows he doesn't have the support network he needs to bring his behavior into compliance. he is going to be told by the people closest to him that he did nothing wrong and shouldn't be sorry for what he did and that means he will never be a

good officer again. that's why you should terminate him. i would like to reserve the last minute and a half for rebuttal. >> it is interesting how he goes on how the penalty should be harsher fer officer lewis but he never refers to -- guideline and that is what this chigs should do. look at the guidelines set forth by the commission. all of these specifications, class d of the conduct. you will see the class c is misconduct. you cannot add -- add upon add upon any allegation of specifications when this is a first offense. officer lewis, in fact, you look at class d sks failure to vote entire time and attention to the sufficient performance of police business while on duty. the first soffs a written

warning. for -- offense is a written warning. for failure to treat others with respect, the first soffs a written warning. it is not a termination. it is not days off. it is not suspension. you set up the guidelines. you're turned guidelines and you should use them. -- under the guidelines. he has been on the force for 27 years. since 1982. he has had no discipline. never been suspended and never been off one day of work. he worked in the bayview station. which is a hard station to work. he was transfered. he was -- he was suspended then transfered. suspended illegally. taken off the street and given a desk job which the public is paying for when he should be out on the street fight fighting crime. they took pay from him in december 2005 and put his image and displayed the image on public tv.

chief fong did that and mayor newsome. they called him racist and homophobic. there is no evidence to support any of that. that was displayed and his reputation was out there on the line. and his faculty -- precludes the city from doing that. placing police officer images on display. he has received two bronze medals of valor. accommodations. he has a long history of undercover work. now his first offer that they gave him was a letter of reprimand and they want him to do a video. this is what the city offered him initially. what has changed? nothing has changed. he hasn't been involved in any other misconduct. he has been in the records room five long years. off the streets. he is not able to do the overtime that he used to do and it has stagnated his ability to

be promoted in the department. how harsh is that? then the chief offered him 15 days suspension. this is the offer they made him just recently while we were conducting the trial. then 10 days. not only with officer hurley and lewis, now with officer lewis, you want to make an example of these fine officers because they stood up for their rights. because they fought the system. the system, which is fragmented. it is not working like it should work. and so he has been in this whole process for five years. you shouldn't discipline an officer because of the process. and the commission, no matter how much money the city has spent on this case, should have the