tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 18, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm PDT
apologize. regardless of what happened, they deserve an apology, and i'm offering that today. >> supervisor ronen: thank you very much. i appreciate that. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. so i have some questions about the january 2018 incident where a retired police inspector who at the time worked for the police union used a rap sheet as a political prop. i'd like to call up someone who was at that meeting and share with us what he witnessed there. >> thank you, supervisor. i should clarify, i'm retired from the aclu working on police issues many, many years. i'm just speaking for myself. let me just clarify, they cannot release on the administrative investigation the name of the officer. they can tell you if that investigation is over and
whether or not it was sustained and whether or not there will be discipline. this is not a situation where the officer or officers', plural name, is known. you have a right to know, the public has a right to know when this investigation is over. the captain is correct that sometimes investigations are complicated. the incident that i observed is very simple. the facts are not in dispute. there was an event at the lgbt community center. i'm a district eight resident. i suspected this wasn't about public safety, it was politics. i showed up, and sure enough, it was a p.o.a., talking about why they didn't like the d.a., why prop eight should have been adopted, to get rid of regulations on tasers, why they needed more officers. it was a political meeting, and at the beginning of this meeting, they had taped to the front wall an old-style
printout, if you can imagine the school paper, not sheet by sheet printer, but like a scroll came down the wall and down out into the aisle, about 15 or 20 feet long. during the hearing, they represented that as a particular individual's rap sheet information. and they were saying look, this guy hasn't had any consequences. it was a political prop. it was january 2018, so 15, 18 months ago. this was a front page article in the chronicle where they admitted they did this. there was a person talking about this who had no right to this information, bragged in the newspaper -- this was a quote from gary delanis, we will continue to use these records until someone tells us not to. my question is, has anyone told them not to? i was contacted by internal
affairs perhaps six months after this incident, and i'm like why am i just hearing about this now? there's no dispute about the facts. they're bragging about it in the newspaper, and the investigator didn't want to answer that question, but ultimately, you can have very good rules -- right, so the law and criminal history information is members of the public don't have access to it. and if it is going to be used, it has to be used for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. politics is not a legitimate law enforcement purpose. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. crew. >> thank you. i don't know if you wanted that information now, but thank you for holding this hearing. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. so commander and captain, i understand that we are not disputing the facts that this happened. i think there was an eyewitness there. i think the chronicle also mentioned it in their paper.
i also understand this is against state law which bans the unlawful furnishing of state criminal record summary information. the only people allowed to see these records are law enforcement workers and people with special authorization from a court. the person who provided it to be charged with a misdemeanor. under state law, this retired police inspector should not have access to these records, is that correct? >> i'll go ahead and answer that. a criminal record includes things such as f.b.i. numbers, driver's license numbers, things that are restricted from the public. >> supervisor fewer: and it's my understanding that the public cannot access information in clets, it has to
be for some purpose, is that correct? >> correct. it has to be for a law enforcement purpose, a need to know, right to know purpose. >> supervisor fewer: so for example, commander, if you wanted to go on clets, and he wanted to find out the language -- and you wanted to find out the longest rap sheet you could find, would you be able to sign in and get that or would you be restricted from that if you are not in an active investigation about that particular person? >> so i would be able to access it, but you are correct, unless i am involved in that active investigation and have a right or need to know, i do not have access to it, either. >> supervisor fewer: so even a commander would not have it until they're part of an active investigation. so what we see here is this is a clear violation of your department general orders to use arrest records for
curiosity of political purposes, is that correct? >> i can't comment on whether -- the reasons for this being used, whether it was political purposes. i can only say that access to those items are either criminal violations and certainly administrative violations unless there is an active investigation, so access to that by someone as unauthorized is a criminal violation and certainly an admin that we require and complete an investigation on. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so we heard that in the chronicle that retired inspector was quoted as saying we'll continue to use these records until someone tells us not to. was he told not to do that? >> i can say our unit made an effort to speak to mr. delanis,
and he refused to speak to us. >> supervisor fewer: so did sftd request an investigation from our state attorney general since this is a violation of state law? >> i know our office did an investigation into this. as mr. crew had mentioned, the general consensus of the witnesses that were interviewed was the document was quite old, in that it was, as he said, a spool of perforated paper by all the witness accounts, which would put us back before we could do any of those searches that you talked about where we could access the information. in other words, this was a very old document, possibly ten years or more -- i wasn't there, i didn't see it. but based on all descriptions, the document that was used, i have no idea whose name -- it
was never revealed, and no one at the event never saw the name, so we don't know the person allegedly who this rap sheet was about. i mean, no one could actually even verify that it was a rap sheet and not a prop. so there was some issues with it. while it was purported to be by mr. delanis a rap sheet, it may have been bluster. it's impossible to tell, it's so old. >> supervisor fewer: so my question was, has sfpd requested an investigation by the state attorney general. >> no. >> supervisor fewer: did you do an investigation? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: and what was the outcome of that investigation? >> i kind of synopsisized it a few minutes ago. >> supervisor fewer: excuse me,
captain. i'm sorry to interrupt you. are you telling me that this incident happened, and you're telling me you could not say this was in violation of any of the general orders or any of your protocols, is that correct? >> no, that's not what i'm saying. the person in possession of the item, mr. delanis, was not a law enforcement officer at the time or retired law enforcement order, so he would not fall under the general orders. >> supervisor fewer: and what became of that criminal investigation? >> it's at this point insufficient evidence. there's -- it's inconclusive. as i said, the document that was described by the witnesses, including mr. crew, was so old, ten years or more, based on the type of paper if it was in fact our document. we haven't used perforated
paper in approximately ten years in the department. so no one could provide us with a name so we could search in that direction. we dated it over ten years old, so we couldn't compile enough information to identify if in fact that was a true rap sheet. >> supervisor fewer: so, you know, this hearing is really about public trust, so how are you ensuring the public that this isn't happening again, that these rap sheets aren't displayed for political reasons as a prop during a public safety forum? or are you concerned about that or do you feel like that is a concern? >> supervisor, it's actually a concern. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, commander. >> we -- officers in our department have to go through
clets compliance training every two years that tells us what we can and cannot release. there are times we issue reminder bulletins, although we shouldn't have to, because of the clets bulletin, the officer should know. when you use a rap sheet outside the manner of what the scope of their investigation is, we have a duty to investigate it, as i mentioned. we can't ensure that every officer doesn't go down this route and doesn't make -- and take an action like that. what we can ensure for the public is that when we find out about it, we will do an investigation, whether it's criminal or administratively. and if we need to address it with additional training, counseling, whatever comes out of it, we have a duty as a police department to do that. >> supervisor fewer: so have you had violation of police officers accessing information through clets that is not
authorized? >> i'm sorry. can you repeat the question? >> supervisor fewer: yes, so sorry, commander. have you had instances where police officers, sworn personnel have accessed information to clets that has not been authorized? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: and what has happened in those cases? >> there's in one instance been a criminal arrest. >> supervisor fewer: and have there been any terminations? >> sorry? >> supervisor fewer: terminations, because actually -- >> i don't -- >> supervisor fewer: -- you gave us this sheet that said it could be suspension or termination, depending on the severity. >> yeah. depending on the past practice of the individual, termination could be a decision, depending on the violation that was received. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you. i have a few questions about this latest leak that the public is concerned about about
jeff adachi. i have a memo from an investigation at the public defender's office, from someone at kron that jeff adachi's was being sold by a stringer. i'd like to bring someone up from the public defender's investigation unit to explain this memo, if you wouldn't mind. >> good afternoon. i'm the managing attorney of the investigation unit of the public defender's office. thank you, supervisor fewer, for calling this hearing and bringing attention to these issues, many of which impact our clients and we care about very deeply. so on february 24, two days after mr. adachi passed away, an investigator in our office,
senior investigator jackson holland who's in the audience today went to the location where mr. adachi was located shortly before his death. and he made contact with a kron 4 news reporter who said a stringer was offering to sell mr. adachi's death report for $2500 a copy. kron could not afford to buy the copy but other news outlets could and did according to this kron 4 news reporter. she gave mr. holland a copy of her business card, and he informed myself, matt gonzalez, and the new public defender. and on march 4, our office
provided a memo written by mr. holland to sfpd. on march 4, mr. holland asked me for a copy of the -- for the name of the reporter and i gave it to him. the report was released prematurely at best, and far more concerning was sold to the media. now, i appreciate that today, the commanders have stated that they acknowledge that this was -- this release was believed to be improper, but if it is true that this report was actually sold, it bears grave
concerns, in the public defender's office, a concern for jeff's family, and his wife, who's here today -- and something that the public should be aware of -- is that the police report was in the hands of the media within hours of mr. adachi's death in a situation where the police themselves viewed the location as a possible crime scene and an ongoing investigation. the fact that this happened involving the elected public defender who had a history of battling the police, exposing misconduct, is all the more troubling. now, again, i want to say that i appreciate that the police department has stated today that they're conducting an investigation. we appreciate that they've offered and extended an apology, but there remain a number of unanswered questions, some of which i think can be answered today. so first of all, who released
or leaked the report containing the information to the media? did the lead investigator authorize this release, and when? was the report -- is there any evidence that the report was sold to the media? was a police officer or were police officers involved in selling the report to the media? has the police department identified any suspects? how many witnesses have they interviewed? has the reporter been contacted -- the contact from kron 4 whose name that we provided 46 days ago, on march 12, been identified? if not, why not? if so, what did that person say? did the police department contact the members of the media who had the report in hand in hours to determine how they obtained the report and from whom they obtained the report? have all officers who responded to the scene and identified in the police report been
interviewed? have suspects been interviewed, any investigations been initiated? what's the status of the investigation, and as supervisor ronen mentioned, when will the investigation be made public? you know, as a public defender myself for 13 years in san francisco, and i've handled many different types of cases, i know that most -- even the most serious cases that are investigated by the police department and even charged by the district attorney, that arrests and investigations are completed sometimes within days, and then, questions are asked later. and our concern is there's a double standard being applied here because it involves the former public defender, someone who did battle the police department. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so commander, captain, i think that we have some questions here, and i know i do.
so can you respond to this memo, and -- that the police report was being sold to media outlets, and are you able to answer any of the questions that the public defender managing attorney has brought forth? >> so i am aware of his memo, and all of the questions he asked are being investigated, but to be perfectly honest, i can't answer them all here. >> supervisor fewer: because i think what you showed in your powerpoint, there is a specific chain of command on which this kind of information is released, is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct, and i absolutely concur with the inappropriateness of early release of information in an active investigation. i completely stand by that.
that's totally inappropriate. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, captain. what is the procedure by which media can obtain information? and in particular, do you ever release pictures of crime scenes, possible crime scenes to the media within hours of taking those photos? >> so i'm not prepared to answer the question of -- you know, specifically, but that wouldn't be totally out of the ordinary to release the crime scene photos under certain circumstances. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. so what is the protocol for media to obtain the police reports and in your history, you've worked for the police department how many years? >> 24 years. >> supervisor fewer: 24 years? thanks for your service.
in your opinion, how long does it normally take to get a police report released? >> the police report should be released within ten days. now, a police report could be released within hours. that's not totally -- it's not against any protocol. for the media, generally, they go through the public information office, and they make a request through the public information office, and they generally prepare that release, and it's normally released to all media at once. once it's released to one media outlet, they all should get it. >> supervisor fewer: so can you tell me if there have been in this particular incident any request through your public information officer from the media for a copy of the police report? >> i don't know the specific answer to that question. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so i would imagine you would be
researching that, though. if you're telling me the official way is to obtain a police report is through a request, then, i would assume that you would be investigating whether there were any official requests from the media to obtain these reports. is that correct? >> as it relates to my investigation, i'm investigating the unofficial request. i don't have any information from the public information officer as to how many official requests were made at a later date. >> supervisor fewer: captain, i think what i'm trying to say, if the media has it in hand, and we saw it, and you're telling me that it is through these channels that they get it, then there would be a record, if it were released to the media via your protocols, there would be a record. my question to you, sir, is this is part of your investigation, i'm assuming.
>> i apologize, i misunderstood the question. no, this release was not done through the -- we are investigating. it was not done through the official channels through the p.i.o. >> supervisor fewer: so what you're telling me today, you're taking this very seriously, as is the rest of the public, and many of the things you cannot tell us today because it's confidential information and the investigation is ongoing, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> supervisor fewer: and then, i think -- commander, did you want to add something? i'm so sorry. >> no, he answered the question exactly as you -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. and i just want to say that i know that when you release police reports, that there is a difference between different types of reports that you take -- accidents. but in the case of a death and -- that you are investigating, would you say, then -- and if -- did you say
one of you worked in homicide before? >> yes, i did. yeah. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so in the case of a death that a criminal -- i mean, an investigation is pending, would you normally not release that report until after you have finished your investigation? >> when there is a -- an investigation that may be criminal, it's unusual for us to release that police report until that investigation is concluded because we don't want to compromise that investigation. >> supervisor fewer: and in that case, commander, it would take your protocol, one of these -- the folks that you mentioned in this to actually release that, give authorization to release that information, that is correct? >> that's correct. so an instance like this, if it was made through the public information officer, they would contact myself or the officer in charge of homicide or the investigation and ask for it to be released, and then, we would
release it with the approval of the investigation often through the p.i.o. >> supervisor fewer: okay, and then concerning some of the questions that the public defender had, i think what we want to know is have there been individuals already identified that could have violated your protocol? >> i'm going to have to decline to answer because it's under investigation. >> supervisor fewer: and do you think that after your investigation is conducted that you would be able to comment on that? >> i would believe so. >> supervisor fewer: so i would ask the chair to continue this item to the call of the chair so you can come back to us and report on this. we appreciate it. and the timeliness of reports, what i'm hearing from different city entities and even police
officers, that they are unable to get reports in that timely of a manner. would you agree with that? that the hours of release after is very unusual? >> once reports are signed off, they're generated for the district attorney's office, for the public defender's office. they get generated quickly for booking situations, o.r. situations. so i can't say there's a spoesk timeli -- specific timeline that prevents a report from being released in a certain situation. >> supervisor fewer: these are the questions that the public wants answered.
we understand that it's under investigation, but the reason i also ask these questions is because public trust has been eroded from this. and i think that a thorough investigation and having you come back afterwards is -- after your investigation is conducted, and all these things that i bring up, the violation of your own protocol, the fact that it is unusual and unlikely that this was authorized. that you, too, are disturbed by this, and that this is -- this misconduct actually of police can actually be -- is punishable by -- that the penalty for the first offense of a class a misconduct is
termination or suspension. i think that's probably what the public will be looking for after your investigation. so i thank you, gentlemen, for taking this seriously. i'd like to open this up for public comment now, so i'd like to call up masuko adachi, please. >> hi. thank you. my name's masuko adachi, and i'm jeff adachi's widow. it was despicable what the police did to myself and my daughter. i saw the police report. it was less than 12 hours, and they released the police report with pictures, and it was all over the news. we had no privacy.
it was an ongoing investigation, and i don't believe that they should have released it. since then, we have requested a police report copy, and i've only received a partial police report with no pictures and not the complete police report, but to say that it doesn't affect the family is an understatement. it's incredibly painful to have the police department to this to you. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. >> julie su. >> thank you, supervisor. my name is julie su, and i speak as an individual, but i also will have my commission on the status of women on.
you've seen the anguish with mrs. adachi and the entire family. this doesn't just extend to the police department but also the medical examiner's office because exactly one month to the date of jeff adachi's passing, the medical examiner released a report with the home address and a social security number. that is outrageous. i don't know who is reviewing these reports before it's released to the media. i spent all day friday -- i spent all day with the public defender's office. i also took the personal anywhe initiative to have the media redact that information. i am an attorney with a public agency. vital information is often redacted. i also make sure that information is redacted before i conduct administrative hearings so that public cannot
get that kind of information. also, d.t.o. 3.6 has victims of sexual assault -- have to opt out before their identities are kept private. the equal access ordinance isn't even fulfilled by the police department. supervisor mar, i know you from working on that particular ordinance. finally, it's curious that the sfpd may be sued because they don't timely release reports on domestic violence cases, and that's by bay area legal aid victims of domestic violence. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, miss su. taku wilson. >> good afternoon, and thank you, supervisor fewer, for having us here today. i just want to point out that as you saw the pain from mrs.
adachi. and not only did that pain affect her, it affected their daughter, and it affected the public defender's office as has been pointed out. imagine if jeff were your loved one, and then imagine that jeff was our loved one. and if -- hopefully, nothing like this ever happens to any one of you or the chief of police, but would this matter have been handled this way? this was clearly a political retribution. with regard to the manner in which the police report was released, it was released within a matter of hours. what is more troubling is that on april 4, 2019, mrs. adachi made the same request for the police reports, and she was told that it would take some time. they replied back to her on april 5. they said we have received your
request, but due to the nature of the report, we must route the request to the investigative unit for review. please be patient as this may add several days to our processing time. thank you. then, on april 10, what she received back -- that is mrs. adachi is please find attached the report you requested, and it was four pages. there were no photos, no consent to search form, and it also said that if you want to request photos, statements, or evidence, a public records request must be filled out. why wasn't that done in the instance of the police on february 22 and 23, when this information was released? additionally, the public made -- >> supervisor fewer: thank you
very much. redi prasad. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> supervisor fewer: public comment? okay. any other speakers -- yes, mr. wright. >> i can tell you from hands-on demonstrating experience, when you have an incident pertaining to the police, and a police report is documented, they tell you right off the top you have to wait ten days until after the report is taken. then you have to go down to the main headquarters on third street and fill out an additional form, requesting a copy of the police report with the police case number on it. a lot of times, the police will come to an incident, and you tell them that you want to give them a report, and they'll just give you a c.a.d. number, and you have to make it your business to tell them that you want a case number which makes the officer write a report detailed on what took place. if you don't, they'll give you
a slip with a c.a.d. number on it which gives them an excuse not to write a report, so you have to point that out. and after you get that case number, then, you have to take that case number slip down to the police station headquarters and fill out a form with that case number with identification showing that your name is in that police report. then, it goes to an inspector. then, the inspector looks at that report and any confidential information is deleted or redacted is the word that they use. so a report or information being released within hours after the incident took place, that's called retaliation. somebody had a conflict with jeff and wanted to release that information without going through legal procedure. whether it's a cop, whether it's a clerk, whether it's somebody in that system because
you can't blame all the cops for this. there's a lot of top class police officers, and there's some that's skunk, there's some that's biased that got put in the federal penitentiary for making those racist texts. >> i also wanted to speak to what they did to our public defender. but first, it's not a good sign what you heard about the january 2018 incident. this is not something where the facts are in dispute. they admitted this was a rap sheet in the newspaper, and indeed, the president of the p.o.a., marty o'halloran, he took the sheet in. he could have been investigated. there are elements in this department that clearly over many years feel they can do what they want for political purposes. we should not dance around the
context here. it wasn't just some theoretical political dispute. eight years ago, the public defender released video that showed serious criminal conduct by members of the sfpd. and for that, while he was alive, he got relentless abuse. the officers said we believe the officers in that incident will be exonerated. when those officers were indicted, the p.o.a. said these indictmented are apparently based -- indictments are apparently based on questionable testimony, and these officers will be acquitted, and they were convicted of federal felonies. and because of that, because of what the public defender did, the racist text scandal came out and officers were eventually fired them, with the p.o.a. supporting them. i have had police commissioners tell me that they fear the
misuse of confidential information if they call for reform. if the rules are not enforced, this accountability avoiding culture will continue. so thank you so much for the hearing and thank you for following up. >> supervisor fewer: thank you so much. point well taken. any other public comment? seeing none, i'm going to close public comment. so commander and captain, so i know that you two did not do this. i mean, i think that we can clearly say that if it were up to you two, this would have never happened, and you would never have brought this type of pain on the family, the adachi family. but we heard today from mrs. adachi that she does not have the full report with photos, and yet, the media does. how is this remedied?
>> so i'm aware of the redacted report that the investigators sent to miss adachi. the reason she hasn't received the report and the photos is from our standpoint, the investigation is still open. there are some administrative functions from court procedures that we have to finalize, and we expect to within the next few weeks, and then, the entire report would be released to miss adachi. >> supervisor fewer: and commander, mrs. adachi is here today. is there anything that you'd like to say to her? >> like i mentioned earlier to supervisor ronen, this -- situations like this erode the public trust of the entire community, but as much this is a personal attack -- it's a personal affront to the family
of mr. adachi, and no family should have to go through this. no family should have their loved ones' untimely demise be put out in public. as a department, we apologize to miss adachi for that. i can tell you there is a thorough investigation going on both criminally and administratively, and those that are responsible will be held accountable if in fact the violations occurs as it appears they have. but again, we apologize to the adachi family, because no one should have to go through that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. as most of you know, my husband was a police officer for 38 years. i think the work he did was honorable. i think it is a job that is very difficult, and there is
respect amongst the public for the work they do, and trust. you're right. when we see a violation like this, and there are protocols and violations of the protocols that affect the public trust then i think this is a very serious matter for all of us. i think that this is the meaning of why i am going to ask the chair to continue this item to the call of the chair so we may call you back after the investigation is completed. thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming today, and thank you very much to everyone who came today. >> supervisor mar: thank you, supervisor fewer. i just wanted to add -- >> supervisor fewer: oh, i'm so sorry, supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: yeah. thank you for calling this hearing, and thank you to miss adachi and to the members of the community who spoke out at the hearing.
i 100% concur with supervisor fewer's comments and questions raised at the hearing, and the nine other colleagues that have called for this hearing and the broader public that have been following this really outrageous situation publicly. i appreciate the captain and commander's willingness to provide an update and state of the investigation. i appreciate the assurances that this is a high priority for us to follow through on. but i think given the history of the january 2018 incident, that, you know, mr. crew highlighted at the hearing and that investigation, there was no wrongdoing found, no punishment, and apparently, no change in sort of the culture and protocols within the police department around respecting crime victims and their
families. so i -- that really i think raises a lot of questions in my mind about, you know, whether we're going to see any kind of real positive outcome i think for the family and the community in this situation. i would say you certainly are aware that the eyes of the board of supervisors and the city are really on you on this investigation, and i look forward to the follow up hearing to talk about the results. thank you. so can we file this item to the call of the chair? thank you. without objection? and so mr. clerk, can you call items -- where are we at? >> clerk: 6 through 15, the balance of our agenda. >> supervisor mar: yes. 6 through 15. >> clerk: 6 through 15 are
various ordinances naming various lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city a city of san francisco. >> supervisor mar: actually, i'd like to call for a recess for two minutes. >> clerk: okay. >> supervisor mar: okay. >> clerk: when will we return? >> supervisor mar: two minutes. >> clerk: two-minute recess.
. >> clerk: the recess is over and we're back in session. >> supervisor mar: mr. clerk, can you call items six through 15? >> clerk: yes. 6 through 15 are various ordinances and lawsuits concerning unmitigated claims against the city of san francisco. >> supervisor mar: are there any members of the public wishing to comment on items 6 through 15 which will be held in closed session? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> supervisor mar: do we have a motion to convene in closed session? thank you. so we are now in closed session.