SF Police misconduct coming to a boil

[BigDogatPlay]

The latest was in an article in this morning's Chronicle.

Kamala Harris accused of withholding vital info

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, June 3, 2010

San Francisco's public defender accused District Attorney Kamala Harris on Wednesday of refusing to turn over to defense lawyers the names of police officers with arrest records or misconduct histories whose trial testimony has helped to convict defendants.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi said Harris is arguing that her prosecutors first must review the names on a list being drawn up by the Police Department. Only after going to court for permission, Harris has said, would her office ultimately alert defense attorneys to the officers' problems.

<< snipped >>

Sources say the Police Department has identified about 135 officers whose histories would have to be disclosed. The information is still in police hands, however, as police and prosecutors are hashing out the disclosure protocol.

Adachi's attack followed a contentious meeting last week with Harris.

One wonders if any of those 135 involve issues with AW's from earlier in this decade......

[BroncoBob]

And this woman wants to be the AG for our state.

[warbird]

This is very scary when a candidate for Attorney General does not want transparency in law enforcement. It bring into question her ethics and her willingness to protect citizens from abuse. No cop's conduct should be considered off limits if he has been convicted at any level of a violation of law, department policy, or regulations. Cops have to be above reproach and the only way that can be proven is by open records on their conduct at all times.

[POLICESTATE]

SF public defender's office should just sue for the information.

[Aldemar]

Although she is not my choice, the timing of the release is suspect. 4 days before elections?

On second thought, GOOD MOVE

[Beelzy]

Who needs to read about her shortcomings.....just go to San Francisco and get robbed.
No waiting, open 24-7!!

[berto]

She really ought to drop out of the race and resign her job. She's doing a number on the already dubious reputations of SF and lawyers.

[dixieD]

This is very scary when a candidate for Attorney General does not want transparency in law enforcement. It bring into question her ethics and her willingness to protect citizens from abuse. No cop's conduct should be considered off limits if he has been convicted at any level of a violation of law, department policy, or regulations. Cops have to be above reproach and the only way that can be proven is by open records on their conduct at all times.

She is an ideologue, a true-believer, and the ends justify the means. Perfect timing for the release.

[TRICKSTER]

While interesting, how is this a firearm related topic?

[tyrist]

So if a Police Officer has ever been convicted of a crime he is not reliable witness? If that were true you might as well remove the entire justice system since numerous victims and wits have not only been arrested but are convicted felons themselves.

[johnny_22]

It's the information that is needed.

So if a Police Officer has ever been convicted of a crime he is not reliable witness? If that were true you might as well remove the entire justice system since numerous victims and wits have not only been arrested but are convicted felons themselves.

Last jury I sat on (murder), some of the witnesses were gang members. The others were drunk. We knew it and took their testimony with a grain of salt. We assume that the officers and detectives taking the stand had no such baggage and trusted them a little more.

[BigDogatPlay]

While interesting, how is this a firearm related topic?

Because of the long standing questions around SFPD LEOs and illegally owned AWs that have never been answered. My hope is that this brings some of it out in the open so that it can be used as further leverage.

Or you can move it to off topic.....

[BigDogatPlay]

So if a Police Officer has ever been convicted of a crime he is not reliable witness? If that were true you might as well remove the entire justice system since numerous victims and wits have not only been arrested but are convicted felons themselves.

And doesn't it kind of depend on what they might have been convicted of? A simple trespass is clearly not the same thing as a felony plead down to avoid an employment ending whack.

Until that is known, how can credibility really be assessed?

Given the recent well publicized travails of the SFPD crime lab, where a coke head lab tech was stealing evidence over a period of years for her own (and others?) consumption, and the general sniff of less than forthright conduct that has long hung around SFPD like a cloud of swamp gas, it really does beg for the light of day to be shone into the department.

[SVT-40]

Revealing information in LEO's personnel file requires a "Pitchess" motion. To much information to post here but here is a very brief definition.


The request is reviewed by a judge during trial and he determines if the information is relevant to the case at hand.


A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information included can include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer's pre-empolyment background investigation. The motion's name comes from the case Pitchess v. Superior Court 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974).

A defendant's right to information about alleged officer misconduct or dishonesty has since been established by statute in California in sections 1043 through 1047 of the California Evidence Code.