officer in the state of california? >> correct. >> so, sworn personnel are held to that high standard of having their off-duty conduct measured as part of whether they are meeting job standards. is that correct? >> correct. >> there are some examples listed here of what constitutes misconduct in the sense of conduct unbecoming to a deputy. the first example is an arrest, correct? >> yes. >> so, you were arrested? >> yes. >> it can happen that a person can be arrested but not have committed an offense? >> correct. >> in your case, you were arrested and you committed an

offense? >> i pled. >> are you disputing that you did not commit a criminal act? >> know. >> so, you committed a criminal act? >> yes. >> you fell below that standard? >> yes. >> of the sheriff has stipulated to a plea for a misdemeanor violation. this line of questioning is asking the sheriff to have legal conclusions. >> the procedure i would like to imply with objections is object, state your basis, and if i or other members request argument, we certainly will. i will sustain the objection because i think we have gone over it.

>> item d, under misconduct. these of the standards that apply to the department and you. the contract on or off duty would affect adversely on the san francisco sheriff apart it would be considered to be misconduct. >> that is what it says. >> objection on the same grounds. >> no question is pending. >> does this reflect poorly on the sheriff department? >> yes.

>> list turn to a little later in the same document, a civic 13. let's turn to section 9.5. >> so, this section is entitled, departmental investigation cooperation. employees are required to actively and courteously cooperate when questioned by a competent authority in an investigation conducted by our agency or others. when the san francisco police department was investigating you, did you agree to be questioned by them? >> objection.

not relevant. >> i'm not clear why it is relevant. why don't you establish some foundation? >> sheriff, could you turn to section 1 of this document? >> page 1.

>> yes. >> there is a definition of the employee there, 1.5. this is the same as department personnel. looking at 1.4, "any person who receives a salary or wage which is paid either by or through the san francisco sheriff department, regardless of the source of funds, four sources rendered by the department." did you get a salary when you were the sheriff? >> yes. >> can you turn back to the section about the criminal investigations? -- about the department investigations?

we have the list of requirements said employees are required to follow when there is an ongoing investigation. section d, give answers that are clear, responsive, an ambiguous, and most accurately reflect the truth of the matter. do you see that? >> yes. >> do you it knowledge that you had a responsibility to do just that? -- do you acknowledge that you had a responsibility to do just that? >> yes. >> now, looking at page 21, the next page. another one of the rules of

conduct. "employees are required to be truthful at all times, whether under oath or not." possess that apply to u.s. sheriff? >> yes. -- does that standard apply to u.s. sheriff? >> yes. >> you are required to participate in counseling, correct? >> correct. >> specifically, you must participate in domestic violence counseling.

>> yes. >> this is also called a batterer's program. >> objection. >> sustained. >> so, when you go to these domestic violence counseling classes, do you learn anything? >> objection, vague. >> do you understand the question, sheriff? >> i do, profoundly. >> one of the things that you learn is that you cannot make excuses for violence. >> correct. >> you cannot minimize your own acts of violence. >> absolutely. >> and you learned that a person who is a batterer cannot rehabilitate himself overnight. >> i agree.

>> in your domestic violence program, you are being taught that you cannot blame the victim for your own acts of violence. >> objection, relevance. >> overruled. >> yes. >> if you learn that domestic violence is an abuse of power. >> yes. >> and you must take responsibility. >> agreed. >> any of these principles that we just discussed, do you disagree with any of them? >> i do not disagree with any of them. >> what about what is taught in be batterer's program? >> objection, relevance. >> i were -- i that. you may answer, sheriff.

>> i do not disagree with any of it. >> sheriff, you committed an act of violence on september 31st, didn't you? >> objection, foundation. >> the foundational objection is overruled. >> i grabbed my wife's arm and bruce did, that is an act of violence, yes. something iit is something i ret terribly. >> it was not an accident that you grab your wife's arm? >> it was not my intention, but i did it, and i take full responsibility. >> when you say it was not your intention, do you mean you accidentally slipped? >> i reacted intensely to a quarrel, and i was wrong in the

way i reacted. >> you reacted by choosing to grab your wife's arm. >> correct. chairperson hur: i will let the answer stand. please proceed. >> and your wife sustained a bruised as a result of that? an injury? >> yes. >> was it your wife's fault that you committed an act of violence against her? >> absolutely not. >> was a ivory madison's fault? >> no. >> was it callie williams' fault? >> no. >> objection. relevance? obviously, the sheriff stipulates it was not -- chairperson hur: i got the

basis. it is sustained. >> are your political enemies responsible for your act of violence against your wife? >> objection. chairperson hur: sustained. >> sheriff, you falsely imprisoned your wife. >> reflates please -- rephrase, please. >> did you falsely imprisoned your wife? >> rephrase, please. >> did you unlawfully violate the civil liberties of your wife? >> i applied to a 236 of the penal code, which is false imprisonment, if that is what you are referring. >> did you do it? >> yes. >> you falsely imprisoned your wife? >> i pledged to section 236 of the penal code. >> i am not asking you what you

pled. did you restrain our liberty? >> yes. >> was that an unlawful act? >> yes. >> so, on december 31, 2011, you committed an act of violence against your wife, and you falsely imprisoned her. is that correct? >> objection. chairperson hur: sustained. >> sheriff, in your declaration , paragraph 4 and 5, you give us this information about what happened on december 31, 2011.

"i had an argument with my wife. at the and i grabbed her arm. this resulted in a bruce -- bruise. it was wrong of me to grab her arm." we do not get any details about whether it happened in the van or in your home. those are not provided in your decoration. -- declaration. >> i am sorry. is there a question? >> your declaration does not give any further details about what happened with you and your wife. >> i am more than happy to answer a question. >> why didn't you put more details in your declaration? >> i am going to sustain the

objection. can you rephrase tax -- can you rephrase? i will sustain the objection, but i will allow the lauren, if you want to get that. >> you told michael krasny a lot about what happened on october 31. chairperson hur: i think there is a question. can you repeat the question? can you repeat the question? >> i will start with a new question. chairperson hur: ok. >> you did an interview with kqed?

>> what is this going to? >> i have been asked to lay a foundation, so i am trying to do it to get to the question. chairperson hur: i will give you a little leeway there. overruled. >> yes. >> you spoke on the forum program for more than half an hour with michael crosby. you give him more information you provide in this declaration. >> objection. relevance? chairperson hur: overruled, but it is a short string. >> i believe so. >> why? >> because he asked. >> you are aware that this declaration is your opportunity to put your sworn testimony before this commission and the

board of supervisors? >> objection. argumentative. chairperson hur: overruled. >> the question again, please? and >> derecognize this is your opportunity to put your sworn testimony in front of the ethics commission and board of supervisors. >> yes. >> and you chose to provide this amount of information under oath. >> yes. >> how tall are you? >> relevance? >> in any case involving a violent act with a victim, size is irrelevant. chairperson hur: i will overrule it. >> about 6 foot 1 inch, a little over 6 feet. >> how much do you weigh? >> objection.

chairperson hur: the same relevance. overruled. >> was this the first time you used physical force on your wife? >> yes. >> was it the first time you used physical force on anyone? >> yes. >> is it the first time you ever bruised a woman? >> yes. >> you have never brings a woman before? >> objection. chairperson hur: sustained. >> you also mentioned -- let me step back for a moment. before december 31, 2011, had you ever prevented a woman from leaving your home? >> no.

>> after that december 31 incident with your wife, did you ever contact anyone for advice? >> objection. relevance? >> i will rephrase. on december 31, when you grab your wife and bruised her, did you realize you had just done something wrong? >> yes. >> and did you come to any conclusion that you needed to take these steps to deal with whatever it was that caused you to grab your wife and bruce heard? >> yes. >> what is the first step that you took? >> seeking a therapist. >> what they did you do that? >> the following week.

in fact, before that. within a few days. i wanted to see somebody. issues regarding the potential custody of our son, and unresolved between me and my wife, hoping we would go together to counseling. >> can you clarify your answer for me? did your answer pertain to advise you sought before december 31, or after december 31? >> after december 31, but it had been an ongoing discussion. >> did you contact any one on january 1? >> rephrase. >> did you contact any one on january 1, seeking help with whatever it was that compelled you to grab your wife? >> no. >> did you suggest your wife contact anyone?

>> i remember encouraging my wife to talk with whomever she wanted to talk with, talked to, yes. >> did you make any suggestions as to who she should talk to? >> i left that entirely to my wife. >> did you make any suggestions? >> i left that entirely up to my wife. chairperson hur: sheriff, i will allow you and your council to decide what you want to do, but if the council makes an objection, you do not have to answer. >> i think it is a timing issue. of all paused before answering. i understand. >> the initial decision about who to contact and when would be up to your wife? >> objection.

chairperson hur: i do not think the question is asking for a statement. i would overrule the objection. >> rephrase, please. >> can we just read the question back, please? [inaudible] >> yes. >> did you make any suggestions to your wife as to who she might contact after december 31? >> objection. chairperson hur: you are asserting, mr. wagoner, a spousal privilege? do you have a response, mr. keith? >> this has been waived. there have been numerous public statements by the sheriff with regard to marital strife before this incident, after this incident, in his own decision to

get counseling, discussions he had with her. >> please speak up. >> discussions he had with her. a front-page story in the chronicle about their communication they had, following this incident. there has been a ruling by a superior court that marital privilege was waived, based on that. i think it has all been disclosed. at least a substantial portion. chairperson hur: i would like to hear from mr. waggoner. i would like to give the crowd notice. this is live testimony. it is very serious. while you might have a reaction, i ask that it not be physical or verbal. if there is one, we will have to ask you to leave. the sheriff has instructed if you see anybody make an outburst, please remove them from the hearing room. thank you. please come to the podium, so we can hear you, mr. waggoner.

>> mr. keith is correct, in that the superior court did determine that the spousal privilege did not apply to very specific communications between the sheriff and his wife, specifically text messages. however, simply because the sheriff and his wife may have waived the privilege as to one set of communications, it is not a waiver of the entire privilege on any subject, for every other communication. it is limited, and should be construed as limited. on that basis, i will submit. chairperson hur: i agree that the spousal privilege does not waive all communications between the sheriff and his wife. however, this seems to be in line with the text messages

stipulated as admissible. i would overrule the objection to that question. >> if i could ask the court reporter to read back the question? >> did you make any suggestions to your wife as to who she might contact? >> we both discussed counseling. that was the only suggestion that had been exchanged. >> what they did you have that discussion? >> over the next few days. >> so, january 1? >> second, first, third may be. this had also been a discussion we had before the 31st.

>> were any specific names discussed about who you might contact, in light of what happened on december 31? >> we both agreed we would do our own research. we would exchange people that we had discovered as potential people we could go see together. correct. >> what names did you discover? >> the very person i actually started to see, who we wanted to see together, but because of the stay away order were prevented from doing so. >> will you just tell me what names? >> one name is dr. leopold viella. there was a list of other names discussed.

>> sheriff, you went to monterey with your family on the second and third of generic. about what time did you get back? >> about 6:00 p.m. >> were you at home that night? >> yes. >> until what time? >> the whole night. >> you never left? >> once i came home on the third, i then went to a meeting. yes. i went to the plumbers and steam fitters hall, where i delivered invitations to my inaugural. that was the only meeting i went to. that was between approximately 6:00 25:15. >> after you got home, did you stay home -- approximately 6:30

to 7:15. >> after you got home at 7: 15, did you stay home the remainder of the night? >> yes. >> on the fourth, did you drop your son off at day care? >> i did. >> after that, where did you go? >> i was to meet quickly back home to gather my work stuff, and then went to the city hall to meet with retired undersheriff jim dempsey -- jan dempsey, and drove down self. >> that is a san francisco county jail in san bruno. >> that is correct. that is our property.

>> how long did that ceremony last? >> the ceremony probably lasted longer than i stayed. i returned quickly back to participate in my last budget and finance committee meeting as a member of the board of supervisors. >> did you have any calls with your wife? did you try to contact your wife that morning? >> i may have. >> did you leave a voicemail message that morning? >> i may have. we often text and/or the voice. -- and/or voice. >> i want to show you a copy of