have read the material. >> what you were provided by your secretary, as i understand it, or the volumes of transcripts for april 30 and may 21 of this year. you were provided department exhibits a through m. and assistant patrol special officer exhibits 1, 2, and 4, exhibit 3 having been withdrawn during the hearing. your also provided a copy of the charges, the written and closing arguments from the department, a written penalty statement from the department, a post tiering brief, and a post hearing brief on penalty. those are the documents that were in the package provided by the commission secretary, if he wants to go ahead and take your statements now as to whether the

remainder of you have read and considered all of those documents. >> i can clearly say that i have read the documents. but i do with hold on reading the penalty statements, because i did not want them to influence me before i decided on the merits. i figured we could take a break before we get to that. >> that is fine. >> i have read everything. >> i have read everything. >> yes, i have read everything. >> yes, i have read everything, i guess. >> and we still have a quorum for consideration of this case. >> all right. is there any other questions? thank you, counsel. i believe we have to discuss the case. i do not know if you want to handle specification, spot --

specification 1, 2, 3, or four bang? >> maybe we can move into the specifications. >> your overall impression. >> i would really rather not. i was hoping to hear from you, and then i would go forward. i was thinking about how i would characterize it. >> there is conflicting testimony, especially between patrol specialist tachihara and some of the store owners and employees. >> i did the hearing. i have to say, to the id, i looked at the id. i think a bag was placed on top of it when it was copied. i did not see it as being an issue. i thought the gun dealers were

on it. i thought they did believe that was the id they copied. there is some discrepancy in the way it copied, but i do not think it is not the id. i thought the gun dealers were credible. it was to they could not say that mr. tachihara said he was a police officer, but when i first came here, i saw the uniform, and it looks like a san francisco police officer uniform. i do believe there were credible and honest. i believe they thought he was a police officer. i also agree with what commissioner term and said. -- commissioner turman said. if it is unclear, you have a duty. it comes down to signing a document under penalty of perjury, say you are a peace

officer. i believe mr. tachihara did not check the box, it is something you are credited under penalty of perjury. the review it before you sign it. i wonder whether you take advantage of -- i am struggling with it. >> i have to tell you that i agree with mr. tachihara's council, as far as the uniform goes. maybe outside the city, people did not know. i do not know if that, in and of itself, it is an act of misleading.

i am not in favor of finding a violation of specification four. i am not sure exactly where i stand on specification two. , but on one and three, from the weight of the evidence, it leans strongly in favor finding for the staff and apartment. i believe mr. tachihara is guilty of specifications one and three. i am interested in what others think on specification two. >> i agree that it seems like there is enough evidence to meet the standard, specifically

because, in the dealer record of sale, a peace officer is at the top of the page. it is hard to miss, even if it is a long document. it does not seem like that, taken together with the other things patrol specialist tachihara did, he is misleading the gun dealers to think he is a police officer. the fact that he is doing this further and further out said the city, a month apart -- he has already ignited the first time. he does it again a few weeks later. he is purposefully not identifying himself in order to get an off-list record. i wanted to hear more about the hearing itself, and testimony how it came across. i read the relevant portions of the transcript over and over again, to figure it out.

sometimes, he does not recall. other times, he says, "i did see tachihara across the room in civilian clothes, with the gun exposed." it was a low and clear to me. specification four, there is a question of whether wearing his uniform and equipment to get the guns is a violation of department rules. it looks like it falls on whether or not he was on duty, and it is unclear. generally, you are on duty if you are patrolling your section. are you on duty when you are getting a weapon? what if it is a weapon you are not supposed to get? it is a little unclear. i wonder if you had anything to add. >> i have the same issue. when i look at the briefs, the department brief mentions that

the district -- he is to sign in, when he is on duty. and he is to sign off when he leaves today. i think pacific cut is way outside his contractual obligation. it seems like he is outside, where his work is. but you said he was on duty. i am torn the same way you are. >> i think wearing the uniform is representation being made. what i am not clear about is the rules, if he is supposed to remove that uniform when he is not on duty. being in uniform in pacifica --

is that some type of violation? >> my struggle is a little bit different. going there in uniform, we know how the uniform looks. is it a passive way of getting the firearm without declaring, "i am a police officer"? some of this transaction was done on the assumption he was a police officer. i believe he presented the right id. and he has north station. he could mislead somebody that he is from the northern station. i do not see him identifying himself as the police officer, but i see him as passively identifying himself as a police officer.

that is my take on it. >> i tend to agree with everything my colleagues have said. it is important to remember what commissioner chan said. there are a number of pieces of circumstantial evidence that he identified himself as a peace officer. jury instructions and direct evidence are given equal weight. does it prove a material fact that is in issue? the circumstantial evidence here is pretty overwhelming in showing that he made a number of strategic decisions to put himself out as a police officer, and did not correct it. i think the record is clear. we are talking about big guns. these are off list for a reason. these are only for peace officers. we are talking about a firearm

with a 15 round round -- 15 round magazine. people chose to make a decision that only peace officers should have these. when i look at the interim rules from 2008, the specialist is a private patrol person employed by a patrol special to perform security duties of the private nature, and businesses within the assigned area. i think it is important that we look at the totality of the representations that were made, and really what is at stake. in a situation like this, we hold police officers every day to general orders. you have to know what the rules are. it is a big issue to not put yourself out as something you are not. i am comfortable that there is significant evidence to prove

specification 1 and 3. four, i have the same concerns. i did feel there was evidence in the transcript from the inspector from ied. technically, it is not a violation of the rules to be in uniform and out of jurisdiction. but i use that fact more for proof of the other specifications. it might have been useful to go in later and get the gun. in terms of a carry a concealed weapon, i felt like the evidence was there. if i have a gun, when i move a certain way, it might be concealed. "qwhen i moved a different way, you might not be able to see it. i do not think the fact that owners could see it at certain points did not mean it was not ever concealed. >> some of our control

specialists are post certified and can carry. >> i have not said anything. >> i am waiting for you. >> as the non-lawyer of the group, i will be blunt. my personal feeling is that assistant patrol specialist tachihara should be bending over backwards to make sure there is no confusion at all. that is the way i feel all the way around. with regard to personal weapons, with regard to identifying himself as an officer, with regard to sales. i am a little bit astounded. why would he relied on mr. hanby? why would he take his word that he could purchase the weapon in

the first place? that does not make sense to me. he has the duty. he has the rules. he should have been over backwards to make sure there was no confusion with any of these things. that is just the way i feel. one and three are fine for me. i would vote yes on all of them. >> i think there is an issue with specification two. i do not agree with that. 23, i can see that. with the fourth be wearing the uniform? >> if it would help, i can read the relevant rule. >> for list -- for which

specification? >> this is for specification four, uniform and equipment displays off duty. patrol specials and assistant patrol specials should not use any uniform or equipment item, including weapons, except on route to their beats and while on duty for the city and county of san francisco. whether or not he is on duty and is picking up a weapon that you say you are using for your duty, but should not have -- is that on duty or not? >> show we take a vote on it specification? >> we will do that. >> vote on specification number

one first. >> your using the amended complaint, right? >> a motion to sustain. that is the word i am looking for. the move to sustain. >> falsely identified as a peace officer in an attempt to purchase and off list firearm, a violation of the rules and procedures for patrol special officers and their assistants, and the general order to 0.01 of the san francisco police department. >> second. >> vice president marshall?

>> i. >> commissioner did jesus -- dejesus? commissioner dejesus: aye. commissioner turman: aye. >> the motion passes. all in favor. specification two, falsely identifying as a peace officer and carrying a concealed weapon into city arms while dressed in civilian clothes, a violation of rule 9 of department general order to 0.01 and the interim rules for patrol special officers. >> i move to sustain. vice president marshall: aye. commissioner chan: no.

commissioner turman: no. commissioner laughtus: aye. >> the motion fails, 3-2. >> read specification three, please. >> falsely identifying himself as a police officer on a record of sale for a firearm and an application for a firearms permit, falsely facilitating the sale of an off list firearm, a violation of the interim rules and procedures for patrol special officers and their assistants. >> move and sustained? >> second. >> want to take the vote? >> yes, please.

vice president marshall: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner dejesus: aye. commissioner turman: aye. >> sustained by a vote of 5-0. >> specification for, failure to follow the rules regarding use of uniforms and equipment, including his firearm while on duty, including the interim rules and procedures for april specialists. >> movements sustained. >> second. >> i will take the vote. [roll is called]

commissioner turman: pass. >> it passes four to -- >> you need to go back and ask. commissioner turman: aye. >> it passes, 5-0. we have three sustained. >> yes, we have. we will take a five minute break, and then look at penalty. can i ask you a question? they can argue a penalty, can they not? >> we usually allow an argument. >> will take 85 minute break.

-- a five-minute break. >> i only have the department penalty brief. is there another? >> there is a post hearing brief.