Police Commission revokes assistant patrol special appointment after finding false identification and related violations

The San Francisco Police Commission voted to revoke the appointment of Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachihara on July 11, 2012, after sustaining three of four disciplinary specifications that the commission said showed he misrepresented himself when attempting to obtain an off-list firearm.

During closing arguments, Ashley Worsham, counsel for the San Francisco Police Department, told the commission that "the department's position...is that assistant patrol special officer Ernest Tachahara is in fact guilty of violating specifications 1 through 4," and detailed evidence including a business card, a signed Department of Justice form and a DROS signed "under penalty of perjury." Defense counsel Louis Silver urged the commission to focus on the specific charge language and argued that witnesses did not testify Tachahara affirmatively identified himself as a peace officer at the time of the transactions.

After deliberation the commission recorded these outcomes: Specification 1 (falsely identifying himself as a peace officer in an attempt to purchase an off-list firearm) was sustained; Specification 2 (alleging false identification plus carrying a concealed weapon) failed to be sustained by a narrow vote; Specification 3 (false statements on record-of-sale and facilitating an off-list sale) was sustained unanimously; Specification 4 (failure to follow rules regarding uniform and equipment) was sustained by majority vote. Following penalty-phase arguments, commissioners moved to revoke Tachiharas appointment, citing the seriousness of the sustained violations and the resulting public-safety risk.

Vice President Marshall and Commissioners DeJesus, Chan, Turman and Loftus voted in favor of revocation. The commission instructed the department and city attorney to prepare the written findings and required paperwork to implement the revocation pursuant to commission rules; the revocation is effective from the date of the vote.

The hearing record shows the matter before the commission was File No. ALWC12033 and that both parties submitted written closing arguments and penalty briefs prior to the vote. The department urged revocation on grounds that Tachihara signed forms under penalty of perjury and continued conduct that created a misleading impression about his status; defense counsel emphasized contested witness credibility and urged a penalty short of revocation.

The commission acknowledged it may schedule follow-up filings consistent with its rules and the city attorneys office will receive the commissions written findings.

The commission's action closes the administrative phase of this matter; further administrative follow-up and paperwork were ordered.