people are on opposite sides of a case. our job sometimes means that we have to make a credibility fighting. who do we believe in that particular situation, so he said/he said, this is the problem i have with what you say he said he said. the first thing i asked you tonight, you launched into a discussion on the merits of the case, and you started talking about this, and the first things that lead from your mouth was how this search warrant was illegal and how you had issues and problems with it, not, sir, not that i do not definitely believe that is the place, but there is a process when you believe the search warrant is an issue, because you still are mandated to serve it, so now i am hearing in never had a problem with serving it, but the

very first thing you presented to this commission is how illegal it was. i understand that, but what i have a problem with is it is a hard position to now come back and say, "i never had a problem with serving it." especially when the first thing you say to address it is how you read the it is and how bogus it is. do you understand what my position is? >> a lot of times in the police department, we do things we do not want to do. sometimes we do not want to go to demonstrations, or we do not want to stand in line, but we do because we were given an order to do it. regarding what if you disagree, you can verbally advise your supervisors, and then you go and carry out with the order. you can still disagree and put it into a memo form. that is optional. i advise the lieutenant spillane that the search warrant on alex

was not going to fly, but i never told him, "i am not going to serve it." i did not prepare the search warrant. another inspector prepared it. commissioner turman: annie waited a week to serve it. >> alex was in hiding. after the judge signed it. six days after the judges find it, you have 10 days to serve it under the penal code. -- six days after the judge signed it, it was served six days after, you have 10 days to service under the penal code. commissioner turman: and then you rushed out and served it. >> yes, i did, because i took as an order to serve it. commissioner: how long have you been with the department? >> i have been with the department for 25 years.

i also want to tell you that idea that no prior discipline, except years ago, i received a reprimand that was sealed for an automobile accident. i have a meritorious conduct reward, over 150 complementary, two commendations, and i just received something that was signed off by chief suhr. vice president marshall: i guess that comes to -- >> yes, i am constrained by the time limits. we were given a limited time to sleep -- to speak. commissioner: what i am getting, from what i've seen and accommodations that i have read and the packet that we have,

there are a number of combinations. -- of accommodations. you have 25 years? >> 25 years. commissioner: i want to be really clear with you that an officer that has served in the way that you have served for 25 years, who distinguished himself by making it to the ranks of the homicide division, too, until this body, and i can speak as a former prosecutor, that it is ok to wait six days when there is an open homicide case to serve a search warrant where there is evidence that could help solve that crime is really hard to figure out given your statement that you met concerns about the search warrant, so i would like to hear from you. i2 about whether you are really making that argument before the commission that it was ok in your experience, in your 25

years experience on the force, that you just got around to it in six days, that it was never on the back burner, that you never did not want to do what did attend it wanted you to do. >> i never put it on the back burner. the inspector, after he went out to get a description of the location on 11th avenue, he had to write a description of the search warrant. he actually talked to the next- door neighbor and a business card. the inspector gave a name, and he spoke to him, and he said if he saw alex, he was going to call us, because he knew where he was, outside the city in an undisclosed location. commissioner: but when you search the house, he was not there either, so that ultimately was not the reason. >> when he and the deputy chief said they were upset that it was not served, i took it as a direct order to go serve it now, not 10 minutes from now, so i went to go and serve it, and i

got the assistance of the swing watch homicide inspectors, and they told us there was movement. we did not get everything that was requested for this search warrant because alex, having to get dna swabs, we did not searches vehicle or get dna swabs from alex. he was in hiding, in genuine fear for his life. the victim services told me that alex was cooperating, we are not going to provide services to him. i spoke to the attorney, and he told me that they want to keep all of their options open. he never told me," i am not cooperating with this investigation." he was frightened. i want to try to get him in a frame of mind that he could come forward, i.d. the killer is.

i fought to get into homicide. i've is going to do my best. the clearance rate at homicide at that time was 25%. 25 percent said. i wanted to make it 75%. that is the only reason i wanted to get into homicide. if you guys want to terminate me for trying to do my job -- commissioner: it is ok. what i want to tell you is that it is clear from the record that you, coming from the sexual assault team, wanted to take a different approach with this, wanted to take your time and build trust. >> you cannot force people to cooperate. commissioner: that i understand. you understand that we're trying to make a credibility issue on whether or not you followed an order or not. there is difficulty given you are so public and your clear

difference of opinion with your supervisors about what the right approach was. >> prior to going to support -- homicide, i never had any problems with any supervisor except for the one written reprimand which is sealed because of an automobile accident. doing what was told. they put me with perhaps the toughest pretended to work with. i get along with him. i do my job. i have been doing an outstanding job. this incident happened during a short time in homicide. they did not want me in homicide. they were bound and determined to kick me out of homicide, and if you're going to firing over this stuff, i am pleading with you. i have down -- done an outstanding job for the san francisco police department. i have an outstanding record, and i am going to continue to do a great job for the chief and for the city, and i am at your mercy.

vice president marshall: 4 inspector lee? all right, thank you then. deliberations. thank you. >> for the record, you have a quorum. excuse me?

we are ready when you are. are we on? >> chief? chief suhr: nothing to. -- no thank you.

>> it says we are live. >> our screens are on. >> we are back in session. you have a quorum. >> john alden, for the department. >> inspector frank lee, representing myself. vice president marshall: the commission has deliberated. specification number 1 is sustained by a vote of 4-1. with regard to specification number two, the specification is not sustained, by a vote of 5- 0. with regard to specification number three, the specification is not sustained, by a vote of

5-0. with regard to specification number four, the specification is not sustained, by a vote of 5-0. with regard to specification number five, the specification is sustained, by a vote of 5-0. 1 and 5 are sustained. two, three, and four are not sustained. you wanted a moment to talk to the chief. i believe you asked that? we can stop for a moment and allow you to do that. >> please. thank you. vice president marshall: we had better go off the record for a moment,

>> we are back in open session. we have a quorum. vice president marshall: we will now move into the penalty phase. we will have five minutes for each party to argue penalty. inspector lee, do you have anybody here willing to speak on your behalf? >> unfortunately, the decision you guys made puts me in total shock. i was expecting to get exonerated. i would like to request of the penalty phase be continued for a month. vice president marshall: i will say this. i think we advise you in a memo that this might happen tonight. i cannot do that. >> no problem. i will accept my penalty. vice president marshall: let us begin with you, mr. alden. >> thank you, members of the

commission. with regards to the decision and has been made so far, we have sustained insubordination, which is serious, and with the time card, with which the inspector put down two hours for a five minute conversation. in conversation with the chief and a chain of command, there are three options we would lay out as a department to the commission. in which option the commission picks depends on the factual findings. disobeying an order it is very serious. in some departments, he would get fired for that. depending on the severity, sometimes people do not receive a suspension. more importantly, with respect to the time card, one could view

the time card as an act of dishonesty itself. the timecard reflects two hours. it never says, "i made a five minute phone call, but and climbing two hours -- am claiming two hours." if the commission believes that is dishonest, the department would ask that he be terminated. there is no place for a dishonest cop in this police department. if that happened here, inspector paul lee should not work here. we have discussed the brady ramifications of keeping somebody like that. that first option is one of three options that i mentioned i would describe. the second is this. if the commission has reached the conclusion that the time card was not an act of dishonesty, but a misunderstanding about the appropriate policy or how to fill out the card correctly, and

for that reason, was something other than a live, we do not have any acts of dishonesty in this case, and it would be consistent with past decisions for the commission to issue a suspension. that is what did she could recommend in that case. a third option i would like to suggest it is this. if the commission decided that this time card was not an act of dishonesty, and dishonesty was not implicated in this case at all, the commission could remand the matter back to the chief for the chief to solid discipline. the chief has the ability to impose, at most, a 10 day suspension, as well as retraining or reassignment. if the commission preferred and the commission found there was no dishonesty in the case, the chief would be willing to take it back and pick a 10 day or less suspension and other terms,

along the lines i just described. that is a third option that is consistent with past decisions. it really depends on what the commission thinks about the time card issue, and how much of a sudden -- suspension the commission thinks is appropriate, whether the commission would prefer the chief use of another tool, like reassignment, as part of the discipline. this is an unusual recommendation, but this is an unusual case. the commissioners have any questions, i would be happy will to try to answer them. vice president marshall: where is he assigned? >> he is at southern station. vice president marshall: what station? i am sorry. >> southern station. if i recall, he has a particular specialty at sunland station,

having to do with retail theft, if i recall. all investigations relating to retail theft out of southern station, which is a significant number, since it includes the southern side of market street. vice president marshall: for me, with options 3, what other -- i heard sort of general things. but are there any specifics? i heard retraining. chief suhr: my intention would be to give him the maximum i could give, which would be 10 days. his assignment would remain southern station. whatever my final decision would be, i would like to look at a couple of conditions that could not be appealed back to this commission.

>> about a third option -- if the chief made reassignment as a condition of the discipline, that would preempt inspector lee from transferring to other assignments. there is a process called p1 which allows inspectors to express a preference for where there would like to be assigned, according to seniority. it is a little more complicated than that, but that is the short version. if the chief for to reassign inspector lee 27 stationed permanently, the chief could put him in a position where he would stay at that station for the rest of his career, in the position he is in now. that would be a potential downside for inspector lee. the tractor does not explicitly provide for referring cases back to the chief. we have done that on a few

occasions, trying to think creatively about ways to resolve cases. if we were to do that, we would want to make clear inspector lee had waived the right to appeal from that point. if the commission were interested in having the chief to a suspension with potential reassignment and retraining, to be determined, we would want to know that inspector lee agreed he was waiving the right for form -- for further appeal. this is just something we have come up with now. vice president marshall: any further questions, commissioners? inspector lee? >> i guess the specification one, the repeated failure to serve a search warrant -- my

whole goal was to try to get this witness to cooperate. there was no intention on my part to disobey any order. i come to this minute, believe this witness was fearful of his life. he watched his best friend be gunned down. he was fearful. we told him to stay out of the city for his own safety. the search warrant was prepared by inspector engler. i was the lead investigator. i told the lieutenant's -- >> can i interrupt you for a second? you have limited time here. this is the discussion over what your position would be about what the penalty would be.

we are going back into the facts. i want to hear from you about that. >> i think this case would require a admonishment and retraining. the case has been hanging over my head for over two years, since i left homicide and went to southern. i have done outstanding work there. i have had compliments from citizens. i just completed a case was signed off. i am doing good work at southern. even if they assign me there for the rest of my career, i want to stay in the police department and continue to do good work. i would just ask that based on the unique circumstance, where i've fought to get in -- these lieutenants were passed off at me. they did not want me in the unit. these charges are trumped up. i am extremely disappointed.

i guess i have to live with it. i ask that you just issued an of management. you can give me 90 days, whatever. i will not be sitting on the beach without pay. but what is the goal here? it is to try to get justice. did i learn from this experience? yes. do not have ambitions. i tried to get on homicide detail, and they did not let me in. this is the message. you fight for what you want to do for the citizens. because you are not part of the right club, this is what happens. all i can ask is that you admonish me, reprimand me. nothing more than that. that is all i asked. i have a lot of respect for the police commission. that is why i went to the police commission to complain. i would have never even tried to

get into homicide. i would never have even thought about it. but i will continue to do good work for the citizens and for the police department, and for the chief. i just ask that you give me an admonishment in this case. thank you. vice president marshall: we will move into deliberation. on the penalty. the me to say one other thing. -- let me just say one other things.

>> we are back in open session. commissioner marshall, we have a quorum. vice president marshall: i will say for the last time, i would like to hear from counsel. >> john alden, from the department. >> inspector lee, representing myself. vice president marshall: by a vote ofzfy 4-1, the commission s decided to impose a suspension of 30 days, to begin immediately, unless we hear something from you, chief, that that cannot happen. it will begin immediately. to the commissioners want to say anything? commissioner turman: mr. lee, could you please stand up? i have a few words i would like

to address to you, based upon some of the things you have said. i will not let you or anyone leave this commission meeting with a belief that there is no room for hard work or ambition in this department, and that that is not something this commission does not embrace or encourage. what we can never embrace, we can never encourage, is a failure to follow the rules. i understand you see this differently, but hear me. we believe that every situation that you encounter as an officer, there is a solution. if you are given an order that you do not feel you are comfortable with complying with,

or that you disagree with, there is a dgl, rule 11. read it. you are responsible for knowing it. do not interrupt me. two, if you feel that you do not understand the overtime rules, please, there is a dgo on that. your 25 year record is respected, and it is honored. but respect and honor is only respected and honored and when you do the right thing, when you follow the rules. it is not just about what you do. it is about maintaining consistency in this department. everyone must follow the rules. do you understand that? >> i understand very well. i do not know if you want to

allow me to respond or not. vice president marshall: no, sir. the discipline has been imposed. it will begin immediately. this matter is now concluded. >> thank you. vice president marshall: we still have to sign out. >> i know. >> just my opinion. if he is given 10 days and shows up in six days, where is the rule breaking? >> i believe that was public comment. vice president marshall: you can

call the next item. >> line item 8, for adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. vice president marshall: the meeting is adjourned.