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 ididentifying 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. president mazzucco: vice-

president marshall you have a quorum. >> could you identify yourself for the record? >> appearing on behalf of the san francisco police department. take five minutes and you can reserve it you want. >> i do not think i will need to take the entire time. the department filed a penalty statement on june 25, 2012. it is our position that at officer commissioner turmatach'n should be revoked. tachihara is either confused about what his role is as a patrol officer. he has an unreasonable belief

that he is in fact a peace officer and i do not know if that stems from his work in washington, d.c. 45 years ago but i think that his conduct, i think the impression he gives to innocent members of the public, whether it be business owners, everyday citizens, he places people in this community in danger by his conduct and by his behavior. i think when you sign to bank documents under penalty of perjury attesting to the fact you are a peace officer and that is a lie, you have forfeited your right to work as an assistant officer in the city and county of san francisco. the fact that the commission has sustained three of the four specifications speaks to the evidence presented by the department in regards to officer tachihara's conduct and the conduct is a very serious and merits the revocation of his

appointment. he has left this department no other option but to terminate his employment. his conduct places everybody in danger for what he does and how he acts. in regards to the prior case, as you know, it actually took place in december of 2010. this case took place between september and october of 2010. however there was a a determination not to file charges until january 2012. the investigation was ongoing during that time. hence the reason this case is now being adjudicated after the fact. i think what is important to note for this commission is that the conduct alone warrant revocation of tachihara's

appointment as a patrol special officer. you do not get to lie on those applications and mislead people into thinking you are a peace officer when you are not a peace officer. the rules state you are not a peace officer and the penal code does not define u.s. has. his appointments should be revoked -- define you as such. his appointment should be revoked. >> he is disappointed in your findings but we have to do with the penalty issues. when you are faced with the recommendation for revocation, i think there is a distinction. she keeps saying he does not know he is not a peace officer but you do not have any evidence of that. one thing that may have been misunderstood is that when he

went, at the time he went to the city in uniform was not this transaction. when he went to do this transaction he was in civilian clothes. he was not passively or actively trying to misrepresent himself. he was always in the appropriate uniform with the right patches and everything else. his identification identifies himself as a patrol special. one of the things i mentioned before, this other issue is, is see misrepresenting himself? i want to remind you of an argument i made, for some reason although it seems to be a big deal he went to a gunshot, for some reason the lieutenant went to a gun shop but never went to the specialist

themselves. the rules talk about the weapons they are entitled to have. it does not say anything about on list or off list weapons. they can have a semi-automatic pistol. the evidence shows it is an anomaly in the law. it is actually unlawful for the weapon to be sold, not for him to own a weapon because that testimony is the department knows he uses the weapon. he qualifies at the range with these weapons. he is entitled to use them. the point she is making that would be evidence of official conduct, out of him misrepresenting himself by his confusion that he is not a peace officer. i do not think there is evidence of that. to revoke you would have to make a finding that he is completely incapable of not misidentifying

himself, that he is a danger. i do not think there is any evidence of that. i want to reiterate that i now and i believe that this might have been vice-president marshall's concern, and it is something we are entitled to talk about, it is a legitimate issue to talk about progressive discipline and did people learn from what they did before, reminding this panel that as she indicated, these allegations predate any of the other allegations. there really is no issue of, you have already been disciplined. you are supposed to be paying attention to the rules. i do not think there is evidence that he misunderstood the rules because he is following the interim rules and they do not talk about that. he is always in the appropriate

uniform. there is no evidence of him misrepresenting himself. i understand the votes you took on the obligation he has to disabuse other people of the notion that he may be a police officer but we do not have testimony of that. there was, clearly the mistake he made, but you have to end his career? is his conduct so egregious you need to be concerned he is going to go on the street and somehow violate the rules again or put the community in danger, to put a police department in danger, i do not think there is evidence of that. we would urge you to impose a penalty short of revocation. >> thank you. is there any deliberation?

>> i wanted to say for the purpose of our deliberation that the specification we sustained 1, 3, and 4 are serious enough in and of themselves to warrant termination and we do not need to include the other case he has in the decision that we make. certainly we know about it but it is not something that we need to include into our decision. i would move to terminate. >> second perio -- second. >> excuse me, a move to revoke as a patrol specialist. >> and i second it. president mazzucco: i will take a vote on the motion. >> i want to see if there is any

further discussion. >> i have nothing else to add. i am mindful of the things that mr. silver said and i appreciate his advocacy. i am, however, in full and total agreement with my fellow commissioner that the specifications 1, 3, and four are serious enough for us to consider whether or not we need to revoke mr. tachihara appointment. i am also mindful of that and i believe it is appropriate and the fact that the other incidents may be considered here.

i do not need to consider them but i think they are also illustrate of -- illustrative of another issue. the totality is troubling to me and i am appointed for a specific purpose. that purpose is to ensure public safety. i am concerned of the tubing incident -- two incidents that they form a public safety issue. i do not want to and anybody career but there are larger considerations to think about. >> i have to say, i also appreciate your arguments and i

believe in progressive discipline but i am aware of other incidents where they were not supposed to follow a car, pull people out of the car, and even if it proceeds it, he may not have done it in uniform but he has been in the store in uniform and you're on papers say they make an assumption he was a police officer. i believe that is accurate. he led them to believe that he was a police officer and he did not dissuade them from that and he signed documents that indicated he was a peace officer, by mistake or not, it is very serious. and i agree it is serious in and of itself. i appreciate what you said, i

think the penalty is very serious. commissioner loftus: i reviewed the prior incident because it was in the packet but i feel like i can say that given the timing and all of that was not a factor, it was not the largest factor in my determination. i think this is a case for revocation. what is really important is anyone who potentially carries a gun, anyone, you see the list of things it patrol special has, handcuffs, a baton, has to have unimpeachable, unassailable credibility. we talk about that. people feeling safe. i think we have an obligation to look at really what happens. what we have is a patrol special

who is not authorized as a peace officer. does not have that status. attempting to, based on the specifications, represent themselves by word or by deed as a peace officer to get a glock 15 rounds. if you looked at the guns, i agree with strong advocacy on behalf of mr. silver but the facts are not in your favor. it is very clear what guns that are able to have. it is like a .38 and .357 magnum. i think the risk to get a weapon at the regular public cannot get is serious enough to warrant termination.

>> if i might. to clarify the motion as i understood it. based upon the fact that the current -- vice president marshall: aye. commissioner dejesus: aye. commissioner chan: aye. commissioner turman: aye. commissioner loftus: aye. president mazzucco: motion passes, 5-0. >> i need to talk to the city attorney but there are

instructions about the appointment. that is what we will do. we will ask the department to carry out the paperwork based on the vote this evening. >> [inaudible] >> we would expect the department to prepare findings based on our vote this evening pursuant to the timeline set forward in our rules, the closing council as well of the