went -- >> hold on. what is the basis? i will overrule it. >> i have no doubt that if i went to one of my officers, the chief of police and say, give me the guns, he would give them to me. >> you mentioned something called a last chance agreement. what is that? >> in the system of discipline that we have across california the most of the time it is progressive discipline. it builds on itself and to you get to the point where you will terminate someone because that is a very serious response of misconduct within the police department. in many cases, what we do is like drunk driving is a good example. if someone is arrested and convicted for driving under the influence, they may be suspended, they may be put on what we call last chance, which means if they agree not to be

terminated and if they agree to carry out a drug testing, that they can retain their jobs. if they have any other violation of drunk driving or coming into work under the influence, they would be immediately terminated and they have no recourse to go through civil service. this is the best chance agreement. this is serious when you have done and our response is serious to manage it. >> if you were convicted of driving under the influence, would you enroll yourself in your last chance to >> program? >> yes. >>if i was arrested? i would be fired. i am a good will employee. i cannot say stronger, it is a

gift being a chief or a sheriff. it is a responsibility and it comes with awesome authority. we set policy, we said the procedures in place. we say what is important, what is not. we organized priorities. we move people around on a daily basis. i wanted to do that, you have to have a couple of things. you have got to have the trust and support of the politicians that you work for. you have got to have the trust and support of the officers, the trust and support of the community that we serve. all three layers. if you lose the trust, it is time to remove yourself from our position. being arrested as a chief of police, they have left gracefully. if i was arrested, i would leave the apartment because of the damage i would do to this department and that would be incredible and i could not repair it in the time i have left in this business of law enforcement.

>> would you compare overcoming political rivalries with being a convicted criminal making accusations against court in it criminal-justice agencies? is that the same caliber of this function that you could overcome? you were asked if you are aware of whether or elected politicians who had rivalries were sometimes able or often able to overcome them and work together effectively? >> yes. >> do you think that that is the same sort of problem that sheriff mirkarimi would have coming back to his position in working with other criminal justice agencies?

it is this like political rivalry or is there something more in this situation? >> there is a lot more in this situation, if you are talking about public safety and our relationship and how we work together. when we are standing together on the street or a riot or occupy movement, you have to trust that person standing next to you to cover your back. >> doesn't matter to you that sheriff mirkarimi pleaded guilty to domestic violence?

does this carry significant weight in your opinion? >> it looks like it carries more weight. he pledged to the crime. it says that he did it. he committed an incident of domestic violence. domestic violence is one of those things that we treated very seriously across california and the nation. it my understanding is one at a for of all the women in america are a victim at one time. >> are you making a motion to strike it? >> i disagree. >> we did the issue, pledged to the crime, but he says he did it. he committed domestic violence.

that is with us since we treat very seriously across america and the nation. >> everything from domestic violence is a serious offense across the nation. that struck. please proceed. >> in your mind, does it make a difference that he pled guilty and was convicted of domestic violence as opposed to a dui? >> i think domestic violence is a crime which is more than just an accident or a onetime incident. i think it is significant when you look at domestic violence that it is a behavior that needs to be corrected over a long time. i think that when you plead guilty to domestic violence, my understanding some of my experience shows me that usually when you have a victim report domestic violence, is not the first time.

it is not the first time. usually they developed the courage to step forward and reports that incident, not the sixth or seventh time that it occurs. >> everything after "is the first time" is stricken. >> do you have any concerns that a sheriff would have committed domestic violence? >> yes, i do. it is a crime that is violent in nature, that it is about control and power, that it is the behavior. there is a tendency to use that control and power to their own

benefit. >> wire those concerning? >> because you are in a position to use control and power every single day. >> you have any information on whether it matters to witnesses as to whether the chief officer committed domestic violence? >> yes i do. >> the whole thing is about that. that objection is overruled.

>> what is that opinion? >> there are lots of victims of domestic violence and they are frightened to report it and they want to know that the police department will be responsive in a compassionate and caring way, they will not become the victims, but they will be someone that that suburban or agency or sheriff steps forward to be able to manage that and make sure that their interest in their life is protected. beijing not often see the people who do the work every single day since else that this person

that you have to trust. if you have a belief that they're somehow bias or unresponsive, or not compassionate and the process, they will not report it. you want to reach out and make sure that the victims of domestic violence are encouraged to step forward to be able to move forward. >> the think it is possible to violate the standard of professional conduct for personal -- >> yes. >> do you think that sheriff mirkarimi has failed to do things that you have expected and would have been required of a chief law-enforcement officer in this case? >> i do. >> can you give me an example? >> it is my belief after reading the incident.

as someone who teaches ethics and process, you have to encourage victims to step forward. in this case, i was taken back. i read the reports, in my view, as a professional in this business, this is a true hero to step forward. they reached out to try to help someone in need in a compassionate and caring way. >> this is sustained. >> you were testifying that it concerns you, something about the treatment of 53 madison concerned you in regards to some element of the sheriff's failure to act. could you explain that

connection to me please? >> it is my belief that this sheriff should have defended someone to step forward to help his wife when she was an aide. >> why do you believe that ivory madison respected his wife? >> it is my belief that miss lopez went to her because she was frightened and scared and she needed someone to sit with and say, what do i do and she got exactly that, someone who tried to assist and help her and stepped forward. i think the sheriff should have stepped forward and congratulate and thank miss madison, not down to a position to allow some of the things that occurred which seem to question her credibility or attacker as a person. >> when a witness comes forward to report a crime, do you look into that witnesses or that reporting witnesses character or whether she ever wrote a comic book or her political beliefs or anything like that?

>> no, we take the statements that they bring to us. >> you don't believe you need to investigate the nature of the reporting on this? fifth fife for flex the only thing we would look at to see if -- aligns >> the only thing we would look at would be to see if there are any other reports. we congratulate them and every single case. we encourage them. >> does law enforcement of a handgun crimes being reported? >> we could not operate in a sheriff's department, police department without the cooperation of those people who step forward and bring us the information and are willing to testify. those of the people believe to encourage fifth as if you don't, it is a chilling effect on the rest of the city. >> do you believe that it is

important to treat complaining witnesses respectfully to encourage them to come forward? >> i do. >> have you ever had an experience in your years as a chief law-enforcement officer where a victim or witness was not treated respectfully and that discourages them from cooperating? >> i have. >> can you describe one of those instances. >> ofin the city of san jose or richmond, they have instances of gang violence. the witnesses were terrified and it took us almost a year of hard

work. we were able to bring the homicide rate down by 50% because as victims and witnesses step forward. >> would it matter in your opinion in terms of what the sheriff was required to do or not do to keep personally not making attacks on ivory madison but to say his attorneys in this proceeding did? >> it is my belief in reading the reports that he was a position to stop it and he did not do that. >> thank you. >> you were asked a moment ago that if you got arrested for a

dui and got convicted, whether or not you would in role in the last chance program. you said, i would enroll. >> i got confused in think about the advice i give to the officers. i would resign. >> so, you would resign, but it is ok for your support is to enroll. >> they have that option. >> i don't have anything further. >> concessions -- questions from the commissioners. >> thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> i am interested in the standard of conduct that we are expecting to apply and i'm wondering if you could help us. in your experience, is or should the standard of conduct, our

charter, the conduct of falls along the standards of decency, good faith, and right action and is required of all public officers. i am wondering if that should be a city, regional, state, national, or other standard that we should apply. >> and this is the wrong witness to be asking. i would object that there is not any foundation to give that and a cause for the conclusion. >> your objection is noted and it is overruled. >> i believe it is a standard across california. >> you would apply a state standard in understanding that definition? >> absolutely. i believe that would raise the

bar for the entire state. >> on page 17 of your testimony, you talked about risk management and you said that "this compromise is the ability of the san francisco sheriff department personnel to effectively testify in criminal proceedings and presents a serious legal risks in civil litigation. can you explain what you mean by that? >> they have a list across the state of california that the city's attorneys and district attorneys have all got together. this is a list that has all of the officers who have something that would cause concern in a criminal trial, a conviction

would be one. i'm truthfulness would be another one. what it means is this, that every time you testified in court, if you are in a civil case or a criminal case, the district attorney would advise the court that in your background is an issue of concern. the example for the sheriff. there was an issue of domestic violence, they would step forward, i believe and say that this case, you need to look at it to help you make your decision as you judge the testimony of the sheriff. >> to is the you? >> it would be the district attorney talking to the courts. they are required to notify them so there is disclosure. and that never goes away.

>> could this be rebutted by being clear in the testimony or demonstrating that one was not testifying? >> they would have a chance in court to rebut it but this would be required to know about it before of the choir starts. >> i have just a few more questions. >> you have raised -- you have suggested that the law enforcement officer -- you have raised some questions about sheriff mirkarimi's discovery, activities, the defense that he was mounting as a criminal defendant.

and i wonder if you can help us understand how an individual, who has rights in any criminal proceeding, can mount a legal defense on his own behalf and continue to meet the standard of conduct to, as you describe it, support and cooperate with the administration? but i think that is one of the challenging dilemmas that we have. >> absolutely. everybody has the right to an attorney and representation, to make decisions in how they want to manage that case as it proceeds through the courts. that is something that is guaranteed to them. if they are not guilty, there is still an internal issue to take place, but it does not refrain them from doing that. there is some requirement, with

the guns, to step forward. they are required, or at least asked for, they should respond and give those up. it is evidence they are asking for. >> so, your concern is not with mounting a defense or explaining what your behavior was, or not agreeing to four charges, but pleading to a single charge. it was specific things you understood demanded a response. >> correct. >> you also commented about a criticism or a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. could you help us reconcile the ability of free speech and criticism, public statements of one's belief, with the

responsibility to meet the law enforcement standards of misconduct, as you understand it? >> i think we need to be professional at all times. i believe this. it is not just my belief, but the other chiefs that i deal with. you have a right of freedom of speech. but to attack the system, if it is unwarranted, if all they are doing is their job, it is misconduct, and unprofessional. >> finally, you spoke about the affirmative duty of a law- enforcement officer to ensure the integrity of investigations. and to treat legal proceedings, including those for domestic violence, with appropriate gravity. i wonder if you could explain to us what you meant about that affirmative duty, and trading charges with gravity. >> understanding that -- the

process, your responsibility to be professional. understanding the committing a crime on the part of law enforcement personnel is a very serious matter. you need to manage that effectively and well. but within the confines of what the law says you can do. there comes a point where you begin to attack the system instead of dealing with the issue of the problem. the problem is defense. it should be banished well and effectively. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. chairperson hur: other questions? commissioner renne: good afternoon, chief. following up on the question about paragraph 58, page 17, about risk-management, you talked about brady requirements. that would only apply if the sheriff himself were personally

going to be a witness in the matter. isn't that correct? >> that is correct. commissioner renne: how does the fact that the sheriff, in this case, has been convicted of a misdemeanor? how does that affect the ability of any of the sheriff's personnel appearing as witnesses in cases? >> it does not. it would only be when the sheriff is the one who is going to testify. commissioner renne: did you take into account, in forming your opinions, the fact that sheriff mercury me -- sheriff mirkarimi was elected rather than appointed? >> i did. commissioner renne: what effect, if any, does that have on your opinions? >> it is my belief that the standard of behavior, the ethics, is exactly the same, whether you are a share for

police chief, elected or appointed. -- a sheriff or police chief, elected or appointed. commissioner renne: you do not think the matter in the case of an elected official is any different than an appointed official? >> in some counties, who do not have the ability to remove somebody other than a recall process. but the standard, the ethical conduct, the integrity, being the same person on duty and off duty, the trust we talk about is exactly the same. your the head law enforcement person. -- you what are the head law enforcement person. commissioner renne: thank you. chairperson hur: any other questions for chief lansdowne? >> i want to go back to your testimony about what you believe the sheriff affirmatively needed

to do, with respect to the press and media attention that ms. madison was receiving. i want to give you a hypothetical, since you are an expert. >> yes, sir. >> if the sheriff did not tell the press to harass ms. madison, is it your opinion that we should find official misconduct because he did not take affirmative steps to protect her from such harassment? >> i do not think this case is complex. >> i just want an answer to my question. >> that alone, the answer is no. >> if the sheriff had put pressure on reporters, let us say, to call ms. madison with story ideas, and the sheriff then failed to stop those reporters -- the question in and

of itself, is getting complex. let me try again. if the sheriff told reporters to call miss madison with story ideas, and the press did so, is that official misconduct by the sheriff? >> no. what, then, should the sheriff have done? what should he have prevented, in your opinion? why does that amount to official misconduct? >> i believe, as an expert, he should have stepped forward and said he appreciates ms. mattison stepping forward. chairperson hur: it is his failure to do that that you think constitutes official misconduct, among other things? his failure to step up and commend her for stepping up is, in your mind, official misconduct? >> i thought he should have defended her.

chairperson hur: it is official? >> yes. chairperson hur: as you can tell, we are struggling with the notion of what official misconduct really is, and how it relates to the duties. in probing that, what wrongful conduct could a share of engage -- could a sheriff engage and that is not official misconduct? >> not to be arrested for a crime. not to commit domestic violence. chairperson hur: i am talking about wrongful conduct that does not constitute official misconduct. do you understand my question? >> i am trying to understand it for you. >> commissioner? it may be easier for this expert, given the nature of his expertise, not to try to answer the legal question about what is official misconduct,