chairperson hur: we are back in session. wanted to update you everyone watching -- the plan for the rest of the evening is as follows. because i think these issues potentially relate to the sheriff fifth testimony, -- the sheriff's testimony, we need to reconsider the fourth paragraph of danielle. then, i want to talk, hopefully briefly, about the additional exhibits the parties submitted. i intend for the sheriff to begin his testimony. are the parties comfortable with that schedule? >> yes. chairperson hur: as far as timing, i am willing to be

flexible on when we stop. i do not anticipate this to be a night where we go on forever, because i think the sheriff will obviously be here, and we will be able to continue tomorrow, if necessary. >> we will start -- we were going to stop at 9:00, based on our scheduling conference call. chairperson hur: that is the goal, but we will be flexible based on what the commission felt they could do. >> i think we would prefer to stop at 9:00. we all start to run out of steam. it may make more sense to get back together tonight -- back together tomorrow. there are only three witnesses. i am not counting the sheriff.

chairperson hur: ok. richard danielle -- the mayor made a request to reconsider our exclusion apparent rapid -- of paragraphs 72 through -- 27 through 31. is there a dispute about paragraph 26 fax the other any disputed facts -- perhaps 26 -- paragraph 26? are there any disputed facts? i mean the amended charges. that was a poorly-phrased

question. >> are you asking whether there is a factual dispute? chairperson hur: yes. i would be inclined to grant the motion for reconsideration.

there is that paragraph. again, this is pretty ancillary to the charges. but for the reasons stated in their quest-- the request, and the interest of being cautious, with respect to our record, i would allow it. i also want to say that i am not in favor, in general, of requests to reconsider. i do not want to invite motion after motion for reconsideration. that, i also want to say. i opened it up to my fellow commissioners on this issue. do you have any questions for the parties? or comments? >> i am fine with that. that limited -- i am fine with

that limited purpose. chairperson hur: danielle, paragraphs 27 to 31. >> i am glad to reconsider that. chairperson hur: any dissenting view? if we could make note of that. i want to talk about exhibits. the reason i want to talk about exhibits, because you may try to use them now. i have not seen any addition to these additional exhibits from the sheriff. join have an understanding that 50, 78, 79, 80, 83 are stipulated? >> right. >> ok, great.

there is an objection to the sheriff's case. i tend to agree with the mayor. if you want to cite a case, you can cite it in a brief. i would recommend that sustained the objection to the sheriff additional exhibit. >> i would like to speak to that. i did not jump in when you discuss this. the reason why we believe that situation or the formal dish returning.

it is clear from the history of san francisco that the sheriff has willfully defied a court order and not been sanctioned. ada has been elected and served. we think that that is highly relevant and appropriate to the official misconduct in the city of san francisco. >> are there any comments about to be a disability of this exhibit -- about a the in admissibility of this exhibit. >> the amended language of the

official misconduct portion of the charter is unconstitutionally waived. the decency, right action expected of all public officers. our contention is that official misconduct remains what it has always been in san francisco and at -- as it has been described in case law. >> under a different standard of the city charter though, right? >> well, not exactly. the original language of official misconduct remains and then this extra purposes is grafted onto it in the 1995 amendment. >> this was not in play in the time of the case. >> our position is that the extra parts should not be

considered. you might not agree with me, but if we are right, and, if off the death flushed the line you might agree with me, but if we are rough -- you might not agree with me, but if we are right. >> so, this portion is excluded. ok. the next item is the testimony of the sheriff. before he comes up, can you give us a time estimate of how long you would examine him. >> in total, if it is hard to say without knowing how to first floors of the exam goes. if i don't think i will finish tonight.

if i can say that much. >> ok, will the sheriff please come and sit in the chair closest to the commission. thank you, sir. we will have the court reporters where you live in. >> the sheriff is the chief of a law-enforcement agency, correct? >> for correct. >> the sheriff oversees 800 deputies? >> correct. >> the sheriff overseas off 100 deputies. >> correct. >> the budget is more than $174

million. >> i believe so. >> you maintain security of the court? >> correct. >> i am inclined to overrule the objection. i think it is foundational. for now, i will overruled that objection. >> the sheriff provides the security. >> yes. >> the sheriff oversees the jails. >> yes. >> at any given time, there is approximately 1500 prisoners. >> even more, yes. >> and the sheriff is responsible for the safety and security of those prisoners 24 hours a day? >> in the staff that works in

the jails as well. >> it is the sheriff responsibility to make sure that all prisoners have been imprisoned according to the requirements of the law? >> if a prisoner is not in prison according to the requirements of the law, then a false imprisonment has occurred, correct? if the sheriff has been imprisoned a prisoner in violation of legal requirements, then that is a false in prison in, right? >> objection. >> foi would rephrase.

when a prisoner comes to the jail, he is turned over to the custody of the sheriff's deputies and they have to book him into custody. they have to ensure that he is released at the appropriate time. >> he or she, yes. >> if that does not occur, then the incarceration becomes illegal, does it not? >> that depends. >> a sheriff has to work as a peer with other law enforcement leaders. >> yes. >> as an equal with the chief of police? >> yes. >> as an evil with the chief of the san francisco probation department. >> -- as an equal with the chief

of the san francisco probation department. >> yes. >> you will be on probation? >> i believe so. >> you will be under the supervision of the adult probation department. >> i believe so. >> there must be recommendations on whether or not you're performing the duties correctly. >> i believe so. >> the sheriff has to work as a colleague with the san francisco superior court. >> yes. >> we discussed how the sheriff provide security for the court. they're responsible for executing court orders? >> you are required to appear in the superior court for probation hearings. as a resort -- a result of your conviction, you have to stay away order. >> yes. >> you cannot have a firearm

under your possession or control? >> yes. >> the sheriff department has written standards of professional conduct. >> yes. >> those are in writing? >> yes. >> they apply to every deputy in the department, correct? >> yes. >> if the deputy does not meet the written standards of conduct, he can face discipline, correct? >> yes, possibly. >> who makes that decision? >> there is a chain of command and that depends on the nature of the offense. >> who has the authority to suspend a deputy? >> the ultimate authority would be the sheriff but it is not uncommon for the under sheriff to render disciplined.

>> is the sheriff is the only person that could suspend the deputy? >> circumstantial. >> is the sheriff to a live person in the apartment that contaminate the sheriff? >> yes. >> it do the written standards apply to the sheriff himself? >> i believe so, yes. >> and in a larger sense, shouldn't be sheriff fleet the department by example? >> yes. >> everyone should be able to look to the sheriff for an example, correct? >> yes. >> they should be able to look to the sheriff to exercise good judgment? >> yes. >> everyone should expect the sheriff to exert self control?

>> yes. >> everyone should expect a deputy to refrain from using his power? >> yes. >> every deputy should expect to sheriff not to commit a crime? >> yes. >> so, sheriff, i want to turn to some of those written rules and regulations. this is mayor's exhibit 13.