>> i waited for the whole criminal prosecution to complete itself. as i said earlier, out of respect for mr. mirkarimi and the judicial process, i waited for the full conclusion. and then asked to make sure that i had the complete record and reviewed what i could in order to make that determination. >> was there any reason why you did not also conduct your own full investigation? >> i believe the court process established that was sufficient to confirm the ron paul behavior. -- wrongful behavior. >> why didn't you suspend sheriff mirkarimi with pay?

>> i believe that that position requires someone who is working, and in order for that person -- the city to pay that person. if that person is not permitted to work, and it as a result of these circumstances, i felt necessary to suspend without pay. >> why didn't you treat him as innocent until proven guilty? >> because he had already pleaded guilty to this charge. the court confirmation of this was the conclusion. >> mr. kopp mentioned, and you agreed earlier, that there are some political issues between you and my boss.

is see your political ally? it was seat -- i will withdraw that. was the city attorney your political ally in the last election? >> i do not think so. [laughter] >> are you planning on suspended -- suspending dennis and bringing charges of official misconduct because he was not your ally in the last election? >> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> do you think you are more prone to bringing official misconduct charges against people who are not your political allies? >> [inaudible] >> overruled.

>> no. >> a sheriff is a department head in san francisco, is that correct? >> yes. >> is there any department head of any department who could plead guilty to domestic violence and not be removed for official misconduct? >> [inaudible] >> you asked the same types of questions. i will overrule that. >> i would find that that would be a serious enough charged to fulfil official misconduct, certainly wrongful behavior. >> in the department head? >> that is correct. >> would you -- did you have any special concerns of any sort of

the department heads in question who had pled guilty to a charge of domestic violence was the share of -- sheriff? >> i think there is added significance because it is one of the top to law enforcement positions in the city. -- top two law enforcement positions in the city. >> can you say more about how that is significant in your view? >> one of the more disturbing aspects of this is my knowledge that the sheriff is in charge of responsibilities with respect to domestic violence victims. it has historically been a very strong program in the city of san francisco. shared by several various departments to do their part to prevent and to respond to and to

encourage witnesses to come forward in an effort to end domestic violence. the sheriff's department is the key to those various agencies that have that responsibility. and for the sheriff himself to be confirmed as engaged in this is significant. >> do you believe you should lead by example, mr. mayor? >> yes, clearly. >> do you believe that part of leading by example is showing the power of redemption? >> that is certainly something i have learned. >> couldn't you model redemption by dropping the official misconduct charges

against sheriff mirkarimi and giving him a second chance? >> i came to the conclusion of official misconduct because i believe that the actions that were admitted to and the crime that was perpetrated has to have direct consequences. i believe strongly that a direct consequence is that you cannot be sheriff of this city if you are guilty of domestic violence. >> a do you think he is ready for a second chance from u.s. the decision maker? >> -- from you as the decision maker? >> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> does the sheriff have any

duty to work together with the mayor? >> yes. >> in light of the events that have transpired since you brought the official misconduct charges and the discourse that has been -- let me back up. are you aware of any statements that have been made about you in the press by the sheriff or his attorneys? >> [inaudible] >> i am laying a foundation. >> i will allow that. >> som. >> have they been friendly assertions? >> i do not believe so. cops are they the sorts of the a search -- >> are they the sorts of assertions you believe you could get past and rebuild our relationship with the sheriff?

>> it would be extremely difficult. >> one last question, mr. mayor. in terms of official misconduct charges, are you the decision maker in the process, the ultimate decision maker about whether he should be removed? >> [inaudible] >> i will allow that. overruled. >> i am not. >> are your conclusions and your role -- police to be the final -- are your conclusions and your belief to be the final word? >> i have brought the charges based upon the facts i have seen. i note it is the ultimate responsibility of two additional bodies to confirm that. >> does this case rise or fall

in any way it on your opinions? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. >> it does not. >> thank you, mr. mayor. >> [inaudible] >> please proceed. >> you said essentially that your feelings have been hurt by some of this stuff and you find it extremely difficult to get past that and work with the share of -- sheriff? >> objection. >> sustained. >> based on things that have been said during the course of this proceeding, you would find it exceedingly difficult to work with this sheriff if he remained in office? >> that is correct. >> let's say you do not have the votes in the board of

supervisors and he remains the share of. are you telling the commission that you will refuse to carry out your duty to work with them? -- him? >> i am not going to refrain from any of my duties. i will continue carrying out my duties. >> right. if these removal proceedings do not result in the removal of sheriff mirkarimi, of course, you'll put aside your feelings and do what is best with the city, right? >> right. >> thank you. nothing further. >> do any commissioners have questions for the mayor? >> thank you for your time. you are released.

>> the next witness, i understand -- if you will please swear the witness. >> idea. >> thank you. >> it is a pleasure to be here.

this is the best hearing i have been and in 47 years. you were doing an incredible job. >> i appreciate the sentiment, but i would strike that from the record. >> good afternoon, chief. >> i want to ask you some questions about your declaration. i understand you have been retained by the mayor as an expert witness, correct? >> that is correct. >> can you give me an estimate of exactly how many hours you have spent reviewing documents, consulting with the mayor's lawyers, and the mayor, and drafting an editing and preparing a declaration? >> objection.

>> overruled. >> i would estimate 40 + hours. >> you also submitted a list of all the materials that you reviewed. you have been in law enforcement for a long time, right? >> yes. >> you have lectured on ethics of police officers, right? >> that is correct. >> you would agree with me that police officers are human beings like everybody else, right? >> yes. >> they are not always perfect. >> you have trained many officers. you have trained every officer in the san diego police department. >> and in san jose and in richmond, california. >when they walk in the front

door. >> how do you have time to do anything else? >you instruct officers about how to be a good cop, right? some of them listen to you and some of them go by the wayside, right? >> some of them make mistakes. >> within your own department, there are lawsuits and allegations of police officers doing improper things. >> in any big city, you will have issues to deal with. >> you talk about your knowledge of sheriffs. in the county of san diego, is there a sheriff? >> yes, sir, there is. >> they have an area they patrol? >> yes, sir. >> they are patrol officers and

they are serving the function that is equivalent to police officers and men this apologies, right? >> they have a very large custody -- miss apologies -- municipalities, right? >you are aware that in san francisco, the primary responsibility of the sheriff is to keep the jail and execute orders of the court? right? >> it is similar to my job. we manage people. we manage a budget. we said policy. we work with the community and with the government. we do not get involved, nor does the sheriff get involved at the ground level. >> the sheriff's department in san francisco, they do not have deputies on patrol do the work of police officers. >> no, sir.

>> this sheriff's department is on like any other in the 40 or 50 counties in the state, right? >> objection. no foundation. >> overruled. >> i do not think they are much different. they do not have the patrol function. but they still have the function of being the lead investigator. >> when you say lead investigator, investigator into what? >> they are the ones that the county of san francisco looked at as one of the people who is the one that sets policy, said standards of acceptable behavior for law enforcement. when you talk about law enforcement in san francisco, you are talking about law enforcement in san diego. it is the chief executive they're talking about. >> it is your opinion that these officers have to be held to a higher standard than other public services? >> yes, sir.

the executive officers must be held to an even higher standard. >> you also believe that peace -- police officers are convicted of crimes, if they have not passed their probationary periods, they ought not to be hired. if they have, they ought to be fired. >> i know of no personal situations that i have been involved with the disapprobation area officers who've gotten into criminal charges that it not been terminated from the organization. >> ok. do you know of police officers to have been convicted of crimes after they have become officers and stayed on the job? >> yes. >> that has happened in the sheriff -- >> i am not sure. >> sacramento. >> objection, relevance.

>> overruled. let's get on with it. >> i read that in the declaration, but i am not sure. i know nothing of that particular incident. >> so you have read the declaration. >> yes, i did. >> he was sheriff here for 32 years. >> i admire the work he does. >> is it fair to say that he is the primary expert on the san francisco shares department? >> i would say that he would be very knowledgeable about the san francisco sheriff's departments, that is correct. >> you are aware that there are numerous sworn -- employees that have suffered criminal convictions? >> yes. >> one of his top personal members went to prison for manslaughter, right? >> i was unfamiliar with that. >> did you follow up on that to

find out more information? did you find that to be true? >> i did. >> did that indicate to you that the standards might be different than they are in other departments? >> no, it did not. my honest belief is that the sheriff would hold themselves accountable. -- holed himself accountable. >> doesn't it the fact that the san francisco sheriff's department have had personal love suffered criminal convictions, does that lead you to believe that the culture and the department may be different than in other departments? >> i believe all departments probably have some officers who have been arrested and convicted and still operating within their organizations. >> there are many of those officers who are still doing a good job, right?

>> koran. >> the mere fact that a peace officer -- correct. >> the mere fact that that they suffer a conviction does not mean they are unfit for the job. >> you need to define the term, sir. we're talking about sheriff and officer. one makes policies, priorities, and one is the face of the organization. the standard for them is higher than anyone else in your organization. >> if the sheriff of the county suffered a criminal conviction, it it would be your opinion that they would be unfit to hold the office. >> absolutely. >> if that has ever happened, you could not understand the reason for it. >> i would not think it would be in the best interest of the county they serve. >> you yourself have never held elected office, am i right about

that? >> i have not. >> you understand that sheriffs are constitutional officers. they are one of the five officers that are elected. >> that is correct. >> you believe in the democratic process, right? >> absolutely. i have been defending it for 47 years. >> one of the things you wrote in your declaration is if the sheriff does not hold themselves accountable, else is in a position to do so. this is on page 14 of the declaration. short of committing official misconduct, the sheriff answers only to the voters. are you aware of the provision that provides for the voters to recall the sheriff as well as

every other elected official in the city? >> yes, i am. >> there is another way othe sheriff could be removed. that is the democratic way to do it. >> objection, argumentative. >> can i have the question read back? i was thinking about the objection. >> that is the democratic way to do it? >> overruled. >> i do not know if we got your answer. >> could you repeat the question? >> the other way to remove the sheriff would be the democratic process? >> yes. >> one of the other things that you stated in your declaration, you found a lot of fault with

sheriff mirkarimi. safe to say that? >> correct. >> yoon noted that sheriff mirkarimi did not take any corrective action and did nothing to disavow improper conduct like witness dissuasion, right? >> yes, sir. >> did you see the text message for his wife asked him to contact the ex-sheriff to do something. and he responded that he could not do that. if i were to tell you that there is such a text, would that change your opinion? >> no, sir, it would not. >> you also faulted the sheriff for his refusal to cooperate with investigators. is it your opinion that as soon

as a criminal investigation was undertaken by the san francisco police department, sheriff mirkarimi was obligated to speak with them? >> he has the same right as anyone else accused of a crime to take the fifth if he so desires. >> when you say he has an obligation to cooperate with law enforcement -- >> i believe it is in their policy. and every other policy in the state of california. you cannot operate without agencies interacting.

he would have the right to take the fifth and not cooperate, that is correct. >> when there is a criminal prosecution ongoing, persons entitled to not speak to the authorities, right? >> that is correct. >> you have also made -- you faulted sheriff mirkarimi for the way that his firearms were surrendered to the authorities after this emergency protective order was issued, right? >> yes. >> isn't it true that the protective order just stated that he was to turn over the firearms within 24-48 hours to law enforcement? >> objection, no foundation. >> is that your recollection of the document? >> objection, no foundation. >> why don't you lay some

foundation? >> did you ever look at the actual order? >> i have never seen the order. >> isn't the purpose of that order to get firearms or any weapons that might belong to anyone suspected of a crime is out of the hands of the person who is suspected and into the hands of law enforcement? >> to the investigating agency. >> it does not matter where they go, as long as they get into hands of law enforcement, right? >> usually, those orders are directed to an agency. it is their responsibility to collect the evidence. >> you have the opinion that sheriff mirkarimi misrepresented to the san francisco police department how many guns he possessed? is that right? >> my understanding of the information, he said he had two guns, but it was registered for free. >> "i think i sold that one

other gone all long time ago." -- other gun a long time ago." with that change your opinion? >> you do not lose guns. >> you have heard and describe the manner in which his guns were stored? >> correct. >> you do not find fault in the way that he locked them. >> i thought that was good. >> that is how you would advise any peace officer to store weapons to make sure they are not dangerous for someone to come upon, right? >> i tell everybody the same thing. lock them up at night. >> that is the gold standard. maybe law enforcement officers do not follow that standard,

right? >> some don't. >> there are peace officers who may momentarily forgetting where they put a weapon? >> it is possible. i do not know any. but there may be. >> you would agree with me that the human mind, over time, you can forget certain things, right? >> there is a difference between misplacing a weapon and saying that you sold it. >> right. you based your opinion and your testimony on that issue based on what you have seen other people say about whatever the conversation was, right? >> it is the only information i have to base it on, sir. >> ok.

you have made your comments that he did not adhere to his own department's ethical standards, right? >> yes, sir. >> because he committed this act with his wife and he was charged and convicted of a crime. let me ask you this. if there was a deputy sheriff within the san francisco departments who fell below the standards, and was not terminated or suspended for a very long time, would you say that the sheriff have fallen below his standards for failing to adequately discipline the deputy? >> >> yes, the sheriff for the chief have the responsibility to hold themselves accountable.