not procure this document. i guess it is illegal for a minor to purchase cigarettes, but that is really not what we are here to determine today. commissioner hwang: so you did not help prepare this document? >> i was not retained until after this document was submitted. i think sometimes people in their own defense -- commissioner hwang: got it. thank you. >> dr. ojo? >> commissioner, good evening. the department of public health found out the appellant was doing business and violated the

san francisco health code and the california penal code when he sold cigarettes to a 16-year- old minor decoy on december 19. i do not have any reason to doubt the police officers. they are well-trained officers. i do not have any reason to doubt they were using somebody that does not look his or her age. if this were the case, the clerk did look at the id, whether or not he is able to read the id is not the issue at this point. on december 8, 2010, in accordance with the health code, the department suspended the permit to operate for 25

days. in the appellate's argument, it states the suspension or loss of income is his employee's responsibility. he is not taking responsibility for what his agent in this case did at the store. the agent was working on behalf of this -- on behalf of the owner, and does not have the fall responsibility of the permit requirement for that store. in the counsel's argument, he said the suspension was too severe. the appellant has failed to provide documentation as to the percentage of his store's record -- stores' revenue that is based on tobacco sales. affidavits submitted by our

client and the police department does say they misstated the incident as being september 18. they did fly -- did file an incidental supplemental report saying it took place on september 19. we personally fell the appellant's agent was acting on the appellant's behalf and it was the appellant's opportune sheet -- responsibility to ensure his agents are well trained in the law of selling cigarettes to minors. the suspension, i think, is very reasonable. the department asks that the board denied the appeal. president goh: i need to see a

written law from the health department where it says -- can you talk about how shopkeeper's know about the prohibition and the penalty for selling cigarettes to minors? >> at the point of issuance of permits to operate, usually the applicant, in this case the appellant, received that information. during our routine inspection, my inspectors also mentioned it to the operators the need to display the products properly and the need for them not to sell to minors. the tobacco-free projects also mail out reminders every year to all the establishments. president goh: do these

materials indicate that for a first offense it is up to 90 days? commissioner hwang: the attorney suggested this was a cookie cutter penalty other people receive the same penalty. can you address that? >> the department is very, very sensitive about this issue. i think the department has been very fair that if it is your first offense they do not want to go to high, and therefore they allow 45 days. in some cases where there is a

compelling reason to go lower, the department has done that. but we want to be consistent. we do not want to water the lawn down. we found this was very adequate. commissioner hwang: as to the other matters that were before the department, it was for purposes of consistency? >> there could be some cases where it was the second offense and the penalty was much higher. i cannot say that everyone received 35 days. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move to a bottle. -- to rebuttal.

>> on the day that i was there, of all the people, on the first instance, regardless of circumstances, the same penalty was handed out. there was a statement about the reduced revenues submitted to the board. they said the sale of cigarettes was about 10%, but again the cigarettes generate revenues in all the other items for sale in the store. the individual that sold the cigarettes is no longer employed. there were the notices of what any employee of selling cigarettes would have to look for in terms of the date. they were up. the employee reviewed all of the restrictions that must be checked in order to sell cigarettes to a minor. further, i believe it is the

testimony of mr. avef abdelhim that he was not ever notified about what the actual penalty would be. he does take responsibility for his employee for the sale of cigarettes to minors. i urge you to consider again that he has been in business for 37 years without one complaint, and that there is a discrepancy in the dates. have you ever come up when the department came to you for an inspection -- were you advised of what the penalty would be for the sale of cigarettes for a minor? >> they did not show me a brochure or anything to show what the penalty is. i know it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors, but they never showed me the penalty. i was not sure if it was a fine

or something. i did not know what the penalty is if i sell to a minor.i did n. i just showed the law and what to do. commissioner peterson: what are the policies you have in place to train your employees? >> there is a sign to not sell to minors, period, before even those restrictions. i always believed it is not right.

i do not allow them to buy alcohol or tobacco. and i always put signs out there as you walk by the cash register that you cannot buy cigarettes if you are under 18. you cannot buy alcohol if you are under 21. and they know that. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> i worked at the store with my father. it is a family business. the store needs a family of six. we were not aware of what the

fine or anything is in the store. i have been working in the store with my bad for 11 years. we always bring in a sharp team. we checked ids. there are 21 and over science. -- and over signs. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> dr. ojo. >> commissioners, i think the argument of the appellant is not possible at all. if he does not know the consequences, why tell his employees not to sell cigarettes to minors? secondly, prior to issuance of the permit to operate, like i said earlier, the department gives them all the requirements. i do not know what type of establishment he has. if he has purely a grocery

store, this law requires that we inspected twice a year. it is a restaurant -- it is not a restaurant, but a grocery store, but if it serves sandwiches, we inspect more than two times a year. every time my inspector is on site, they do a check for the display and they do make sure that there are signs that you cannot sell to minors and there are consequences. the consequences are given to them when they apply for the permit to operate. this is not the first year we have been enforcing the law. this has been discussed many, many times. i strongly feel the operator knows what the consequences are. he has heard about it from his friends, suspension for a various number of days for sales to minors.

i believe in the 25 days the department is imposing on him is very generous. they were allowed to give him and 90 days, but they gave him 25 days. >> the matter is submitted. commissioner peterson: i found the citadel -- the submittal had a lack of contrariness and responsibility. at the same time, i am sympathetic to the small business. but i agree that 25 days is far less than what could of been imposed. those are my comments. -- commissioner hwang: president goh: i agree. sometimes we continue to look at the id, but in a case where the clerk looked at the id and saw

the girl was actively 16 i do not see how that would be relevant to us our council. -- uus or counsil. -- counsel. i will move to uphold the department. >> the motion is to deny the appeal and uphold the department. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and the motion carries. president goh: thank you. is there any further business? >> there is no further business. president goh: we are adjourned.

>> role call of the commissioners.

>> present. >> commission vice president joe marshall. >> president. >> commissioner james hammer. >> president. >> commissioner angela chen. >> president. >> present. >> commissioner james slaughter. >> here. >> good evening. thank you lieutenant. and welcome to the april 6th, 2011 meeting of the san francisco police commission. we have a pretty heavy agenda tonight and we will move into our first item. excuse me. if you are here for line item number three there is a brief meeting between three commissioners. we ask that this matter go off calendar for further discussions with the board of

supervisors and the san francisco police department. is that correct? >> correct. >> let's call line item one, the consent calendar. i see we have our unit present tonight. >> request to accept equipment from cindy tamara valued at approximately $4,850 for use of the sfpd mounted unit. >> you have a memo in your packet regarding the donation of this equipment. it needs approval of the commission. do i have any objections? >> move to approve. >> all in favor? >> any public comment regarding horse saddles? >> hearing none, next time bring the horses. >> see you. >> line item number two, please.

>> item number two is general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not individual commissioners or department. under police commission rules of order during public comment neither police or occ personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> first speaker. >> good evening commissioners. i am a field representative from seiu. i was intending to speak on item three but i will briefly speak under general public comment. you mentioned that there was a

meeting earlier with the board of supervisors and the mayor's office. my question is whether or not the new chief of police, i know that there were names submitted to the mayor's office. and i was wondering what the status of that was and whether the chief of police would have insight into item three specifically in that ongoing discussion. >> we don't answer questions but one of the reasons why we discussed putting it over is at the time that we do go through the resolution at that point in time we will have a permanent chief of police in place. that is what we are trying to do. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker. good evening, good to see you again. >> good evening. i am apeering on behalf of my brother, charles harrison who was murdered at the beginning of this year.

i wanted to ask -- i am being told different things. somebody will tell me that they are go to contact me about the issue and then i won't get a call. i have been told that a poster would be generated for the suspect who committed the crime against my brother, and when we looked there is just a poster of my brother. i have the recording of the inspector that told us that there would be a poster generated of the suspect who murdered my brother. this person was caught on camera doing this crime. and from my understanding, based off of information that we received from the police that they said this person is a known narcotics dealer who sells drugs to children. i am trying to figure out why is a man able to kill somebody on video and then turn around

and still be out there making a lucrative business. he is extending his debt to children. now we going to wait for a child to o.d. off of the drugs he is selling. i think something needs to be done, you know. it was caught on tape. and i understand that the tapes do not come out clear. but if you can't identify the person on tape can a poster of that person be generated and circulated and maybe somebody else can identify them if that is the issue. i don't think this person should be allowed to continue his deadly string of deaths and keep perpetrating crimes on the people of san francisco. so if we can get a response from that i would really appreciate that. >> thank you mr. harrison. commander, if you can talk to mr. harrison again about that situation. thank you. next public speaker. >> my two issues i want to

bring your attention to -- >> number one the patrol specials. they are not only a violation of the 14th amendment but there is no equal protection when someone can hire them as hire cops but have special privileges within the police department. they are assigned to stations. they are not legal. i want to know when you will put them out of business. i know out in the castro they ignored your request to follow the law. that organization exist and they victimize people like me. the businesses do not want the law enforced. that brings me to my second related point. the community policing done over in the castro, the gay relations and the other corrupt people in the mission stations, i am told the community policing is being discontinued in this city.

if it is not so discontinue it because it creates a corrupt environment where people think they are beyond the law and can do anything they want. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. i haven't seen you for a couple of weeks. how are you? >> i have been very busy with other stuff. i am the co-founder of the revolutionary legal advocacy group. can you do me a favor and circulate this amongst the commissioners and people up there? on that page i found out yesterday that the same officer who was responsible for what happened with me is now

lecturing at schools. that is disturbing that he would be allowed to go into a school and teach kids, you know electures about books and everything like that considering his history with me and as members of the public. and my second thing is to address the insensitive question that joseph marshall asked me following my presentation about the kid that was brutalized. how can someone ask me a question about a 14-year-old point, considering the fact he is already traumatized enough which is why i came in to speak on his behalf. as a man that is the founder of street soldiers, would ask me an insensitive question like that. my thing is i have been coming here for years. i give people respect who give

me respect. not only did he disrespect me but he disrespected an entire family without realizing it. he never said one word to me since i have been come to the meetings. you don't like me. i don't like you. that is fine. how can you ask a question like that in front of everybody in the world about a 14-year-old boy make a complaint. he is not a fully grown human being in that sense. i wanted to dress that to each and every one of you there and to mr. marshall for making that insensitive comment to me. >> if i may. i did not necessarily him making the comment. the complaint to occ does haven't to be made by the individual. any citizen can make a complaint. >> you said did he make a complaint.

i am a trained journalist. that was very disrespectful. i am done with that. thank you very much for having me speak that testimony. >> good evening. welcome back. >> before i start my remarks i want to acknowledge the fact that we are pleased with their commitment to address these issues. i thought it was important that we were here in the two minutes and 45 seconds i have left to give you an outline. i served the aclu for more than 25 years. i was proud to be appointed by this commission to serve on a special committee to rewrite the san francisco intelligence policies. that was a collaborative process. what we did is take best practices from four cities

throughout the u.s. and crafted a policy from san francisco to meet the intelligence gathering needs of the department and also protect the first amendment. i am not here to talk about the history. the history is still reflected in your general order. what i am here to talk about is what we discovered a couple of days ago about the current arrangements between the f.b.i. and san francisco police department in the joint terrorism task force. for the last several years, the san francisco police department has been very open about its relationship and it has been very clear it was participating in it under the constraints of 8.10, the prior memorandum of understanding has specific pro villageses that says san francisco police officers comply with 8.10. the special agent in charge of the f.b.i. promised us that was still the case.

but the one that was finally released shows the opposite. we can have a disagreement about the interpretation but the provisions that protects the policy are gone. i don't want to talk about the implications of that tonight. that is very serious from the standpoint of the policy, of people's right to privacy under the california constitution. i want to talk about the role of the police commission. the san francisco police commission has the authority to set the policy for this department. orders can only be passed after a public hearing or amended. there is no exception for side agreements with the f.b.i. entered into. but at some point in 2007, and we are finding about it four years after the fact, that was changed. it changed in ways that we believe conflicts with 8.10. if i can briefly try to wrap up

here, that goes to the heart of this commission's authority. in san francisco, we very much value and respect and seek out the professional expertise of our police commanders. we make them responsible to this body. the way it is articulated is that they can exercise their management discretion within the boundaries you have set. and those boundaries are set by your general orders. thank you very much. and it is so critically important for the credibility of this commission and the credibility of the civilian oversight process that those general orders, and i want to be clear here, it may have been unintentional. i am not in any way suggesting intentional conspiracy. but what we have found right now suggests that there is an agreement with the f.b.i. that is contrary to your general orders and we believe it needs