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 and reach a settlement that is agreeable to the police

department. that is appropriate case management. you were not represented by counsel. >> i think that before we take this to a vote and to move toward, the party should have a similar negotiations are taking for the time from this commission to discuss this matter. what i would suggest with the approval and permission that we essentially move to the next matter and returned to this. is that appropriate? >> that is fine, and if they are able to reach a proposal, it would have to come back. if they are not able, the commission could continue with the item. >> i agree. >> special officer, do you have comment on that? at one point in time, the assistant patrol was represented by counsel that there is a

history of settlement discussions in this particular case. i think hearing from you would help the rest of the commissioners also assess whether or not this is the direction to go at this point. >> that there were settlement discussions early on in this case, and the special patrol officer rejected those. we can go outside and discuss this matter again, but significant efforts by the department were made to try to reach an early resolution before conducting a full-blown trial. >> for the record and as a point of clarification, at that time, those settlement discussions took place, was the special officer ought represented by counsel? he was.

you have any comments regarding the proposal? >> i had discussions with council and with the governing council as to what the offer was, and as stipulated to them many times that the specification was on the one issue involved, i would have no problem working out a settlement. when they threw in the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. they offered me a three-month suspension and fine, i could not agree to that. the the government is willing to seriously negotiate what i feel is the position, i am more than happy to. >> can i make a suggestion that we tabled this and have a commissioner kingsley see if they can get some kind of

resolution? i think there is some gray area here that needs to be worked out how they could use the assistance of the commissioner has well as the department. l about we do that? >> i will say this. i see the issue that commissioner dejesus has raised. it is still up to the commission to what they should do. if there is confusion with the issue, and if he has a dual roles, have to figure that out. it is still an issue that has to be dealt with. if you don't want to do that, that is fine. but at some point, you're going

to have to -- because it is under our purview, all right? that issue will still have to be dealt with to provide direction for what the department will do anyway. we're dodging that decision tonight, it is fine. >> i don't know that we are dodging a decision, unless there is an issue that needs to be worked out. i agree with you. i was on the commission back when we started discussing the patrol special, but there is some area of clarification. i don't think that we can work those out in the midst of this particular dispute. this dispute needs to be taken off to the side, and we need to deal with the issues as the u.s. suggested. i am not trying to dodge is, i just don't think it is appropriate to move forward with

some much lingering doubt as to what the gray areas are. and have this particular matter judged. >> these things come out in these cases, i disagree, but there are six of us. >> she has never participated in the settlement discussions on this case. >> i would like to know what you think about it because you were in there. >> i am concerned -- concerned in terms of settlement. if i am understanding history correctly on this case, it has been the whose series of negotiations and to settlement agreements that were negotiated by counsel for the assistant patrol officer special and the department.

the second one was more favorable for the assistant patrol special hot desert. and ultimately, neither went throughout because they weren't satisfactory. i think you heard assistant patrol special officer indicate what wasn't satisfactory to him. so this is a new day. we can go forward with new negotiations. and so there is that. in terms of my feedback on each of these specifications, that is a different matter. i don't know if that is what you are asking, commissioner marshall, or not. was your question directed the just towards a settlement discussions?

>> i don't know that the settlement discussion resolved what she brought up, as all i am saying. she brought up an issue, i don't know of any kind of discussion will deal with that. it is still out there. >> since the commissioners have spent time going through the documentation, her that we move on to our closed session and give the department and the assistant patrol special the opportunity. the chief is here. they can see if there is some headway that you can make, because it is a new day. see if there is grounds here for a satisfactory settlement. and if not, we will deliberate on the case tonight. is that satisfactory?

>> i can live with that. >> let's move away from line item #4 and moved to line item #6, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 8 below, closed session. any public comment regarding movement to close session? please call line item number seven? >> a vote on whether to hold item eight in closed session. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor. >> is anonymous.

>> where in open session. we will take a roll call. we still have the chief of police. >> please call line item #9 first. >> about to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion of item 8 held in closed session. >> i will move to vote in favor

of nondisclosure. all in favor? could you please call dodge returned back to line item #4 regarding the matter of ernest takihara. >> to sustain or not sustain charges. and to decide penalty of necessary. >> i understand there was a resolution reached outside. and that needs to be put into writing and scheduled for another date, is that correct? >> we're working on the parameters. >> you will agree to this disposition reached outside and you will not go sideways on us with that, will you? you will agree to the disposition you agreed to, you will not change your mind, are you? >> yes, sir. >> this matter is off calendar. >> can we schedule this for january 4 to come back?

>> that is the next regular meeting. >> january 4? >> yes. >> thank you. >> item 10, adjournment. >> do i have a motion? >> so moved. all in favor? >> we have already had public comment. >> we conducted public comment. do we have a second? >> it is the last meeting of the year. and so if we could indulge in 10 minutes? i would be supportive of that. >> it is not on the agenda, we have had public comment. >> we can always reopened. -- reopen. >> can't we reopen public

comment for five minutes? >> i have to tell you that i understand the occupy san francisco movement and they have a right to speak. also we entertain public comment and we also had, and during the chief's report. i understand it have something to say but we have a process here. it is only fair to everybody. tif a vote is needed, we will take about. >> do we have a motion to adjourn? >> we have -- could open public comment. >> if we adjourn i will stay and just care about. >> i would like if anybody knows it, the president and vice

president or the secretary may have the answer to this from a legal standpoint. i want to know, do we have the authority or the discretion to be able to reopen public comment without running afoul of brown, sunshine, whenever. >> we reopen all the time. it is a matter of discretion. >> but keep it brief and let's not start calling names or hurling accusations. let's be factual. >> think you very much. -- thank you very much. i move to reopen public comment. we had a second. >> second. >> do we have a vote? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> no. >> public comment was two minutes. >> so, good evening. i am with the chinese progress of association and i am here with representatives from different community organizations, labor unions and other folks who are concerned about the 99% here in san francisco and the struggle people are facing with home foreclosures and unemployment. health care, all the things i think you are familiar with. we're here tonight because we were part of a process with the mayor's office to try to ensure the first amendment rights and the right to freedom of assembly for occupy san francisco protesters and anyone who wanted to join the movement would be respected and a different path would be taken here as compared to oakland and other places. he gave us his command that -- commitment.

we could disagree on the issue of pants. he was committed to the right to protest in justin herman plaza and other public spaces. he had no issue with the protests and supported the spirit of the movement and what the message to not be lost in battles over police and other issues. we're concerned of what happened tonight. it is a departure -- departure from the city policy. if there is -- has been a change or if there is actions being taken that are not being run by the mayor, or what happened, a peaceful assembly, hundreds of protesters who gathered at justin herman plaza and went to hold a general assembly, they're talking about different issues and went into the park and proceeded to begin, there were many gathered around. we had a peaceful assembly and

we were surrounded and they decided to arrest. >> good evening. i have been a teacher in san francisco for 25 years. the political director of the united educators of san francisco. we came to the demonstration tonight to voice our support for occupy, articulating the concern of the 99% who are being denied basic services and the most precious is our students and we no classes are overcrowded. we came to peacefully assemble this evening. the president of our union, but tell me out there, we saw peaceful demonstrators articulating their first amendment right surrounded by the police. what we noticed is a much more aggressive stance by the police. we also heard a demonstration of 100 occupiers this afternoon, the police showed mounted --