a public park against a lot and when they were caught on it, the attack police and injured them, none of the derelicts are injured and you have two or more commissioners on this commission and complain about police brutality, that is shocking, it is disturbing that commissioners that were in charge of the police department, enforcement of the law will defend these derelict, these lawbreakers and complain to you, chief about your department's behavior when you were attacked. >> let's keep it professionals. do not use the term "derelicts." >> whatever term you like. the notion they should be so honored for their lawbreaking and for the vicious attacks on police officers and the plea should come under scrutiny for that. it is ridiculous.

it is disturbing, as law-abiding citizens, it is disturbing that people who break the law on the embarcadero are treated better than people who try to have the law enforced in the castro. thank you. any further public comment? please call the next item. >> discussion of possible action to sustain or not sustain its disciplinary charges against ernest tachihara. and to decide penalty of necessary. >> thank you. what used -- would you stake your appearance and officer, would you please come forward? >> you are represented by counsel or representing yourself?

representing yourself, ok. we will start with the department. >> please state your name for the appearance. into the microphone. >> my name is officer tachihara. >> please stay standing. >> thank you. at this time is the commission seeking and a further argument with regard to the written closing arguments that were submitted? commissioner kingsley: thank you. at this time, i would like to thank both parties for

submitting your closing statement in writing. at this time, as we discussed previously, you may have three minutes if you would like to either emphasize certain points made in your written closing statements or address other matters that you would like to state at this time. if you would start, please. >> thank you, commissioner. as the commission have had the opportunity to read, the department submitted its written closing argument on november 5. in the closing argument the department is requesting that specifications 1-6 be sustained based upon the evidence that was presented at the trial. involving assistant patrol special officer tachihara. the detroit red believes there

is more than sufficient evidence to support sitting the allegations of each one of the specifications and i would like to point out when you're looking at the specifications and considering first whether to sustain the specifications and suddenly what type of discipline should be imposed, it is important to focus on those first three specifications. i think the concept underlying the specification one through three are strong examples of assistant patrol special officer tachihara's reluctant and refusal to follow the rules as they applied him. i would note there are three members of this commission that work diligently on dragging -- drafting those rules which were adopted in 2008. at the time these incidents are

alleged to have happen, these rules were in effect for two years. almost two years to the date. when looking at specification one, that incident occurred on december 11 of 2010. that incident by itself most likely at would not have warranted the department recommending the appointment. we're talking less than two weeks later. we have the officer driving down a one-way street. he then heads another -- down another one-way street. he proceeds to travel down three other streets in the city of san francisco. it was seven city blocks that he followed this individual's car.

at no time during the following in pursuit of that car did he radio and to dispatch and request that a patrol -- request that a police officer respond and take over the pursuit of that vehicle. not only does he followed that car for seven city blocks he proceeds to affect a traffic stop. he is the driver -- has the driver through his keys out and has the driver get out and conduct a padding surge. it is the position that his conduct on this today's warrant revocation of his appointment and in conjunction with the other three were asking the department sustained -- commission sustain all allegations. >> what was the actual end time for how long -- was a the three minutes? that was a warning. the first was a warning.

he had a cool time. before we hear from you and because you are sufferers up -- represented i would like to go over the process for this evening. first i wanted to clarify in reading the closing statements, i read an indication around proof being beyond a reasonable doubt and wanted to clarify in these proceedings, it is a different standard. it is a much lower standard of proof and that is by the preponderance of the evidence. essentially, the commission will be looking at the evidence presented at both sides in deciding which was more credible in terms of whether or not a violation was broken.

beyond a reasonable doubt which is the criminal standard it is much higher. there is not a conviction which i also read, this is a criminal proceeding. -- it is whether or not there are violations to the rules and procedures. i wanted to clarify that. after you had your three minutes of a closing statement, because this is -- this entire proceeding is being done in public, we're not going to break and have private deliberations. because this is not an employee matter. this is a contractual issue here. you will be present in the room during deliberations as we go through the specification.

also, we will deliberate on the specification as to whether or not we find it was violated or not. whether to sustain that specification. after that time, if we have sustained any of these specifications before we go in and deliberate with regard to penalty, it would be at that time the department could present evidence of any other violations that one of the commission to take into consideration and likewise, you had indicated you could have character witnesses. it is at that time we would want to hear from your character witnesses. and again, we would deliberate in public so that you would be able to be present when that decision is made but if we get to that point. because this agenda item is in

public, and we take public comment, it is appropriate at this time to see if there is any public comment or perhaps we wait until he does his clothing -- closing and we will take any common from the public. do you have any questions in terms of the process? >> kalpono, ma'am. >> i have never argued or said anything against specification #one. i fully admitted it. as far as specification to in three, if that is according to what the lead attorney says, if it were not for no. 2 and 3, number one would not be where it is now. i want to bring up the point that the facts of the matter is

things did occur but occurred as i said it. i at the time from the stop to that time of completion report was from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. i did report over and over according to what i believe was necessary for prosecution. at the time i followed the suspect, i did not know how many blocks away. how many minutes went by. it was two minutes to me. you can go a long distance and anything can happen. i did not have time to get to my radio or would have called it in. according to my non procedures, i followed the vehicle and came upon some circumstantial facts and to whatever action was necessary. i am still in uniform. i follow the officers instructions. i did everything humanly possible. in the end the suspect was arrested, i believe i save

someone's life. i believe the circumstances are whenever the government says happened is mainly a result of what my report said. there was nobody with me in the car. they do not want to bring it up. i think it is part of the record. there are circumstances there as to whether i signed in inside out. as far as not being forward with the investigation in opened -- entered a thing as honestly as possible. i did not want to make a wrong statement and be accused of making a false outright lie.

there are circumstances involved and if i am guilty of something i hope the punishment will be with the violation was. thank you for your time and i hope you will be fair. >> thank you. if there -- if there is any public comment, with those parties like to come forward? i would like to distinguish this as public comment on the agenda item only and not anything with regard to character at this point. >> i do not know what he did but according to the comptroller's report, they routinely violate procedures. why are you singling him out? he seems more honest than most of them.

they all routinely break the rules, violate the rules, the have for years. what notice does he have that you are going to enforce it on him? he sounds a he did the wrong thing, he admits it. he's been honest about having been the wrong thing. they all should be punished. they should all be out of business. you have waited and i looked around and you look down and refuse to confront the issue because of your political patrons or whatever reasons there are. you refuse to confront the fact that they routinely violate the rules and procedures. the topic of the rules -- this is not a new one. since the adoption of the rules and procedures, attempts to coordinate the services to align with the needs of the city appear to have failed. this is as of august 27, 2010.

at this time, patrols put the financial burden but do not have signed up -- services to the city. patrol specialists provide services for private clients. they somehow because a pre civil war alleged portion of the city charter, which no one can prove even existed, they're going from a map they got that stated 1982, you let these pay to play a private police who do the bidding of their clients whether it is legal or not continue to operate. and you pick on this poor old man. what makes what he has done in spite of -- unlike all them. you have 67 weeks and you have known for years before that their operating out of control. those of us who are innocent

citizens who are not with 300 derelicts hanging out capping who do not pitch a tent and double load in public get ignored while you let them operate outside the law. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. commissioners kalmade you have any questions for either -- commissioners, do you have any questions for either? would you step forward, please? commissioner dejesus: i have been here for five years and i have to say i have a concern about how the department disciplines -- how they manage the patrol specials. it depends on what station your @. some use them all the time. the captains are trying to write them up on everything that could be written. i am reading this information and i understand he is

representing himself. i have to play devil's advocate. he has admitted to the red light incident. he has the right to make a citizen's arrest. what are the parameters of the citizen's right to make an arrest. richard ramirez was tackled and pummeled. certain members of the legislature, people saw erratic driving and called it on the police. i had a case once were the citizen type of my clients and waited for the police to come. people can make some sense arrest. he has a right to patrol this area. he has the right to make a citizen's arrest. if you tell mothers against drunk driving the cannot follow car or attempt to stop the car, we would have a right.

let me ask you why it could he not make a citizen's arrest, almost hitting him and he follows this car and makes a stop and he has a uniform. he does call the police and make their arrest. what are the parameters? why is that not part of this discussion? >> when you look at the facts of this case, including the evidence that was brought forth in trial, when the special officer initially saw that car, he could have easily radio into dispatched there was a driver headed the wrong way. on the street. headed the wrong way down that street. he had to foot the u-turn and proceeded to engage in a vehicle pursued for almost seven blocks. at no point during that time does he exercise some sort of

judgment and think back to the rules that apply to his particular position. these rules are not permissive as they apply to the special officer. there are mandatory. each rule that he is alleged to have violated states that he shall not engage in a particular activity. he had several opportunities with which to call dispatch and he could have still participated in the citizen's arrest after he reported what he had observed. he failed to do that. instead, his judgment is clouded by the fact he believes he is a police -- peace officer so he engages in the pursuit of a vehicle and it is not what i would describe a, a vehicle. he could have provided the description to dispatch. and let the san francisco police department take over from there. when these rules were being drafted, there is a lot of time and effort put into which ruled

the commission would consider permissive and which rules that would consider a mandatory. the rules he is alleged to have violated are mandatory. you shall not engage in a vehicle pursued. you shall not affect a traffic stop. at no point did a special officer exercise any sort of reasonable judgment and attempted to call dispatch so the police department could come in and do their job. >> that is semantics. he said he followed a car and was able to stop it. it was a driver without a license. it is -- i am concerned about the labels you are putting on it when in fact if he was a regular citizen who almost got hit and turned around and did the same thing and affected a stop and got his cell phone and col. he could have and would have

ventured out. he did not make the rest. he called -- pulled the car. -- follow the car. isn't it a violation to write reports as well? >> they're not supposed to engage in enforcement activity. >> the police reports are written by him. he should provide a report which is also off-limits but he cannot follow up car with a truck driver that grant him off the road. >> he was asked to provide a written statement. i would not call that a report. i would define that as a written statement that was requested by the surgeon. that was included as part of the dui arrest report. even if you go past the actual vehicle pursuit, what explanation does he have for asking that driver to toss his keys at of the car and get him out of the car and conduct a

search and have the passengers' exit the vehicle? he did all that before he ever call dispatch. >> the citizens to wrap up and tie as citizen and hold them for the police, why cannot they do that in terms of making a citizen's arrest. what parameters do you have to show he was outside the parameters of a citizen's arrest? >> he was outside the parameters of the rules as they apply to the assistant patrol special officers. these rules are mandatory. it does not provide there are exceptions for him. he does not get to create the exceptions. he does not get to decide when and where these rules apply. their mandatory. it's as you shall. >> let me go back. is not supposed to write a report but the officer made him -- told him to make a statement. the officer told him to read the statement, the officer review the statement and had him change

the statement and sign it. he report. he was not supposed to write a report. >> i do not think that is not improper. -- i do not think that is improper. >> i am looking all -- through these documents. we have on september 8, 2010 outstanding police work performed by this patrol specialist where he was called into a bar. he took control of an unruly subject and took control of the unruly subject, he told him he was under arrest, there was an off-duty police officer in that bar who watched and did this. the patrol special needed help because this man was resisting arrest and the patrol special put a handcuff on one arm, the guy broke away and started fighting. and we have the regular patrol officer stepped in to assist him. they used his baton to gain the

subjects compliance and we had a control officer stepping in. this is written up by the captain and it is good work for the officer and the patrol special. this patrol special. this is september 8. here we have december 20, 2010. he stopped a truck driver and is outside the perimeter. i do not know if a citizen can use a baton on another person or put him under arrest and try to handcuff him but that was recognized by the captain as great police work on behalf of this patrol special. my concern is, why was that kondracke not outside the parameters of this kind -- but this conduct is? who picks and chooses that? it comes down to what are the parameters? the legal parameters of a legal citizens arrest. >> i can play back to the rules as they apply to the special officer. they're not permitted and he does not get to pick and choose when they apply to him. >> i have more examples in here.

i am not prosecuting this case. i look at it and there is a part of it where we're picking and choosing which conduct is going to be prosecuted and which will not. i was not on when the officer was murdered. i understand the control specialists were asked to cover the district while the officers were handling espinoza and many were called into action in their division in the department. i have a problem with the department selects which officers in patrol specialists can do and how much i can do. without bringing up charges. i have an issue. it is not uniform. i do not understand how the december 20 incident differs from the september 10 incident. it is to march -- two months apart and he is brought up on charges. we need to look at that. >> i am confused. are we supposed to deliberate on this case? that is something -- [inaudible]

>> no one has details what is the parameters of 837 of the citizen to make an arrest. is he outside the parameters of that? he has that right as a citizen. the fact he had a patrol special uniform does not take them right away. i think we need to be fair to both sides and make an informed decision. i really am concerned about the different treatment and the different activities even though the report writing is outside his job. that is not call the report writing, that is a statement. he followed a drop dragged and is able to stop the guy. that is the pursuit. he made a citizen's arrest. can he take his baton out and arrest a patron in a bar and get commanded and that is wonderful police work?

>> i wanted to make sure that you felt comfortable, you did get your question -- you ask your question and got it fully answered and to find out -- glenn > commissioner dejesus: did they ask you to read -- write the report? >> yes. commissioner dejesus: did he reviewed that, did he look it over? >> he did four different times from 10 a.m. to 5 -- 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. he told me to write the report because the officers needed my direct falling of him without taking my eyes off him every moment of the way to the time he was stopped to the officers could make their report in conjunction with the d.a. prosecuting this case. commissioner dejesus: you did

write the report. >> yes. >> to any of the other commissioners have any questions for the department or officer tashihara? we will proceed by the lieutenant reading each specification one at a time. the commissioners will take a specification one at a time and discuss it among ourselves. >> before you do that, can each commissioner please state they have reviewed the full records that were provided, that is clear for the record? >> thank you. i will confirm i have read all the documents. commissioner dejesus: i will confirm i have read the documents. >> i confirm. >> i am confirming. >> i am confirming as well.

prsident mazzucco: i am confirming as well. >> modifying a vehicle by adding additional emergency lights in violation of the role of the interim rules and procedures for patrol special officers. >> thank you. >> if i can have a moment. i shared a matter and i have read the documents. is it possible for us to move on to the next matter and you to discuss potential settlement in light of the arguments that have been made? i prefer that before we go through this process of loading, we go through all this -- of voting and we go through all this. i would ask we move to the next item and the council goes outside