that the things you will not let them talk about are things you do not want said and things you do not want heard. you never stop them from logging you for something. you never stop them from complimenting you -- you never stop them from lauding you. during the conversations of the mental health training and the tasers, i noticed there was a lack of courtesy and even blaine's condescension from one board member to others who wanted to make comet -- and even blatant condescension from one board member to others who wanted to make a comment. if you cannot respect each other -- [bell] >> next. >> i understand that you do have

jurisdiction over police regulatory procedures, cage management, and this is regarding a lot that was enacted last year -- a law that was enacted last year, and i think it was designed for illegal aliens, because they need their car to go to work, too, so i want to know what is an unlicensed driver. i am no angel. i have had my car impounded before, and i wanted to take use of the amnesty, but i your recently -- i recently found out my license was suspended. i am a u.s.-born citizen. do i not have the same rights? i need my car to go to work, to come and find a job period -- i

need my car to go to work, too, and find a job. i need my car. i will pay the fees. is it consistent, the interpretation of a lot? -- of the log -- itlaw -- the law? i have reported this to three officers. the officer who impounded my car was officer number 202. he did not really recognized the name, but he said, yes, the assistant d.a., and he did not know how to get my issues to be investigator. so i found out about the occ, and maybe between the two of you, i can get my harassment and other issues addressed. number three, during these issues, i noticed someone following me when i came out of

a gas station. this was 3:30 in the morning of april last year. he pretended that he was going home, and he actually ran up into a precinct. 3:30 in the morning. there was nobody there. i walked in, and i had an argument, and i run down the stairs, and i made a 911 call. i told 911 i get better service getting a ticket. "do you want to wait for an officer?" and the guy was still in the lobby. do the cameras in their work? if you call, they will say, a bold faced lie, that there is somebody there 24/7. do the cameras in the lobby work? number four, please -- [bell] take -- off of the police

academy curriculum. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is mr. hunter. i spoke at the last police commission meeting, safety meeting, over here in the big room, and i have come back to just point a few things out to the police commission, and, for one, when people come or go to the police commission, occ to file a complaint, that person must have been violated to take all of this time to go there, so he or she should be taken seriously. i will say that to the whole group. and the only avenue a person has come a citizen has come is to go to the occ. i do not know how long the occ has been around, but they have

been around long enough. as you see with the corruption, i do not believe that occ is enough to put the fear in officers when they are committing this misconduct on the citizens of san francisco that, oh, they file a complaint with the occ. i would just say that, and i mean no disrespect. i filed a complaint with them because that is my only option, to file with the occ, so i filed a complaint back in august, and it was finalized july 1, 2010. the allegation of unwarranted action against a police officer for searching you is sustained. this was in 2008, when i filed this, so it is nothing new. especially in the black communities, where police do not

understand the logistics of how the black communities are, so when they go there, their mentality is -- an illegal search. low economic areas. across the street, there may be a $500,000 condo. they go to low-income areas in parts of the city and conduct is bad business, as you know. i went to jail three times by the hands of the s&p -- sfpd, and at no time did i go into the courtroom to have the charges dismissed. they were already dismissed. they were sending me to jail, just because they had the authority to send me to jail, and when the officers are in the fifth district committing these acts -- reese.

start with him, who is an undercover officer. i am sure the occ is familiar with that name. [bell] >> anyone else to speak on items not on the agenda? >> are you going to speak on -- >> closed session. we definitely do want to hear from you at that time, sir. >> i want to say that part of the bay community is here, as well. [applause] >> any further public comment? i just want to thank everybody for coming tonight. i cannot specify what you are here, but if i could, if i could

just briefly had a moment with counsel for one of the officers come in maybe we can do that, but it is up to you. -- for one of the officers, and maybe we can do that. mr. johnson? we will move on to the next speaker, and we will address your issue after that. good evening, sir. >> hello, my name is -- and i am a san francisco taxi driver. i wanted to make public comment. there has been some robberies against cabdrivers, and i guess the issue is taxi driver safety,

and they are putting more of these video cameras in zaidi -- the taxis that take continuous video, but i wonder if the people who really gain from this are mainly insurance companies and others who are saving a lot of money by having these cameras installed. they can determine who is at fault. i know the claim is that they deter crime, but i do not know if it is really true, because there are still robberies happening against cabdrivers, so that is all i wanted to say, really. that there could be some kind of driver safety training or something like that, some kind of participation involvement, maybe educate drivers on how to better deal with this issue. vice president marshall: thank you. i just saw an article today on

the safety of cabdrivers, and i know that we want to be involved in that. if you can leave your name with the assistant chief, you can become part of that process, if you would like. thank you. and i have just been advised from the police officers association that we can acknowledge the individuals who are here tonight in support of a particular officer. if you could please stand-up? if you're here to support the officer? please stand up and be recognized. [applause] so i would like to thank you, and at some point, you folks will be available to come forward and testified, thank you. any further public comment? good evening. what is new at city hall, clyde? >> i spent a lot of time

praying -- i spend a lot of time. i want to congratulate a lot of the great work you have done. i know you people are not compensated. i know it is all in mayor lee's hands. the pain that we, the pain of these accusations of these undercover police officers, i am not going to call them -- the pain is running deep. as far as the police not caring, let me tell you. not for themselves. they are wondering. they are scratching their heads. i hope it is coming to a transparent, on this resolution. vice president marshall: think you, clyde's. any further public comment? -- thank you, clyde. if we can call item number two,

please? secretary lt. falvey: item number two, a discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 5.02, use of firearms. vice president marshall: the use of firearms. this has been a work in progress with collaboration between the police department, the police commission, and the occ, and it is my understanding, mr. o.d. -- mr. mahoney? >> that is correct. we have finally reached consensus. vice president marshall: i appreciate all of your hard work. it is in your packets. any comments? i think director hicks wants to

say something. director hicks first. director hicks: yes, the occ has reached agreement with the police department. some language that we suggested be included in the dgo was determined by the department to be tactical in nature, so we proposed that when there is training on the new dgo, should it be adopted, that the training include the following, the officers shall not intention to place themselves in harm's way by standing in front of a moving vehicle, standing directly behind a moving vehicle, or reaching inside a vehicle. secondly, provisions exist because moving to cover, repositioning, and/or waiting for back up to gain or maintain

a superior tactical advantage maximizes officer and public safety in minimizes the necessity of using deadly force. -- and minimized the necessity of using deadly force. -- and minimizes the necessity. thank you. vice president marshall: thank you, director hicks. commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: i think we should put this in plain language for the people of san francisco who are watching. because we have a situation where officers were finding themselves in situations of firing on cars, an incredible risk that they happen to hit the driver in the car, and it would have unintended consequences. some kid walking across the street, -- the perception that it is sort of an either/or. that either the officer is going

to be safe or someone else is going to be safe. this is to maximize everybody's safety, and it sounds like we are going to be able to do that. that was the goal all along, to amend the training so you do not get in situations where they feel compelled to shoot at cars, so i want to thank director hicks for working hard on this, during several drafts company -- pebble doing several drafts -- for working hard on this, doing several drugs -- drafats. -- drafts. >> i want to thank you, commissioner slaughter, president mazzucco .

both direct hicks and others have been very engaged. not only is it just my particular office, but several members stepped up. vice president marshall: i appreciate everyone's work. >> commissioner dejesus would like a brief description of the changes that have been made from the original 5.02. >> just to give a very, very brief description, this encompasses a standard, which was not done before.

it emphasizes the importance of not jeopardizing the safety of innocent members of the public, as commissioner hammer brought up. the occupants of moving vehicles, when only the vehicle is the threat itself. the shooting of motor vehicles can only be done under extreme circumstances and under nearly defined ones. -- narrowly defined ones. purposely going after bicycles and pedestrians. extreme circumstances that you would allow for it, but otherwise, there is a general prohibition. it is important to know that the change in this policy will be clearly focused on the training of all the members, just as director hicks spoke about. as you know, in your packet,

there is information about in- policy and out-of policy shootings. you should know that is part of a current powerpoint slide that we are using. we have included them in the trading. vice president marshall: thank you, commander mahoney. director hicks? director hicks: i would be remiss if i do not mention someone, who has worked tirelessly on this issue for several years. et vice president marshall: -- vice president marshall: commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i want to thank you for working on this.

a response to direct hits -- to director hicks. >> it is now part of the training. the language is very consistent with what is in the department, and like i said, that is one of our powerpoint slides now. professional training. commissioner chan: does that address what you have? director hayden -- hicks: yes, commissioner chan, it does. for one year and about two years, -- and now two years. it is very helpful to hear that

the training does include a powers. -- including powerpoint. -- the training does include a powerpoint. commissioner chan: i notice that there is a little difference in terms of a standard on page two of the new dgo, page 3 of the old one, but the biggest one is that there is no provision for using a firearm where someone is impaired. i just noticed that. i am wondering if that is in another dgo, so you do not need that? >> i think some of the tweaking of the language was done with the help of the city attorney, as well. i am satisfied with the current language, but i think it was

part of the tweaking done by the city attorney. do you have a comment? director hicks: it was vetted by the city attorney. the occ was not part of those meetings, but that is an exclamation -- explanation. >> i believe general orders 202 and 203 go to that. vice president marshall: commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: the information that is in the bulletin, you put on the powerpoint? i am concerned if it does not consistently shown, or is old, that we might lose that todd karkovice, so i would just advise you to find a way to stay current -- that we might lose

that tactical advantage. to coincide with that dgo. vice president marshall: i think he got the message. thank you. commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: a few weeks ago, dealing with some other options. we directed a review of all tactical situations. as part of that review, i think, if we invite the occ to make sure we are continuing to do the best kind of training. she is not shy, and she can come with suggestions.

vice president marshall: -- >> it was loose, so tightening upper this, -- tightening this up, that is important. president mazzucco: commissioner hammer, would you like to make a motion? all in favor? thank you very much, everybody. i appreciate your help. line item number three, please. secretary lt. falvey: i did

number three, a discussion and possible action to accept or reject still committed agreement on charges filed against -- to accept or reject stipulated agreement on charges filed against patrol special officer roberto ortega. president mazzucco: i will turn this over to the commissioner this has been handed to, and that would be commissioner hammer. commissioner hammer: i was assigned this weeks ago and immediately had a telephone call. talking about the merits on this and whether or not they could have a resolution. because i had to act as a neutral intermediary, i did not have much comment on the substance of the allegations, but because it was a public

matter, we deliberate in public, so this is everybody's time to chime in. i am concerned by the allegations in this case, and by that, i mean by what is alleged actually being an offense, et -- an offense, so i just want to zero in on two parts. whoever else is watching. regarding officer ortega, in an area, >> , known as an area of prostitution -- in an area, quote, known as an area of prostitution, stopped his car. no money changed hands. the conversation was not recorded. she gets in the car. they drive on. the key phrase there at the end of specification number one is the allegation, quote, the

accused, by knowingly associating with a known prostitute at that time of the morning in engaged in conduct that reflects poorly on the police department, in violence and -- violation of a section. number two is that he frequented a bar, called divas, and it reads that the accused, and this is a quote, by knowingly visiting the bar, which is located in an area known for prostitution and patronized by prostitutes, engaged in conduct unbecoming. i would just say and allow you to respond, it causes me concern that it suggested that it is in violation of policy to talk to somebody. the word, by the way, is

"associate." and to visit a bar. this is a bar, by the way, where i believe that the president of the police commission, president sparks, had a kickoff of the campaign. i am the only lgbt member on this commission, so perhaps i at a special concern about these allegations. maybe the other commissioners have equal concerns, but when i hear words about "knowingly associated" and visiting places without committing crimes, i have a problem with that. going to places and talking to people. so i will let you address my concerns. i do not want to sandbag you. this is my first time to talk about this. it is on for disposition, but i do not know how other

commissioners react to this. >> thank you, commissioner hammer, and we did have a conference call on this. regarding specification number two, also agreeing that that should be dismissed outright. it should not have been alleged in the complaint, but we do still feels strongly that the conduct -- number one, as well as one rule, 3.04. we felt that patrol special officer ortega's conduct could have been easily interpreted as an act to engage in prostitution. i do not think there was something there to take it to a criminal level, but the department has concerns about, number one, the reputation -- i

realize that patrol special officer ortega is not a sworn member. however, he does a similar uniform as sworn members. people see him frequently in this uniform, and i think that when you have somebody in the early-morning hours, at 4:00 in the morning, having admitted to, and it is not criminal, being in an adult bookstore for a couple of hours, and then at 4:00 in the morning, you allow a known prostitute to get into your car, and when i say a known prostitute, she has a documented history of 30 something misdemeanor contacts involving some things for prostitution-