Police commission sustains five misconduct specifications against patrol special and orders 30-day suspension

The San Francisco Police Commission on Wednesday sustained five of six misconduct specifications against Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachahara and imposed a 30-calendar-day suspension and mandatory training.

Commissioners voted down a negotiated stipulated disposition presented by the chief and counsel by a 0–5 vote before conducting specification-by-specification votes. The commission sustained specifications 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and did not sustain specification 5. Following that outcome, the commission voted unanimously to impose a 30-calendar-day suspension beginning Feb. 15, 2012, and ordered department-arranged training on interim rules and procedures for patrol specials, to be completed by March 15, 2012.

The disputed stipulated agreement would have required Tachahara to admit one specification in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and a suspension with most days held in abeyance. At the meeting the commission signaled concerns about the clarity of the agreement’s language — especially the provision that would hold a termination in abeyance for three years — and whether the proposed disposition left the record unclear about which conduct the commission found acceptable.

Assistant Patrol Special Officer Ernest Tachahara addressed the commission in his own defense, saying he believed his actions on the night in question were "correct" but that he would "take the high road" going forward and would not repeat the conduct. Attorney Ashley Worsham appeared on behalf of the Police Department and said the proposed agreement had been signed by the chief and forwarded to the commission office.

A tally of the specification votes recorded on the transcript shows the commission sustaining the following: - Specification 1 (unauthorized modification of a duty vehicle/emergency lighting): sustained (vote recorded 5–0). - Specification 2 (engaging in a vehicular pursuit): sustained (vote recorded 5–0). - Specification 3 (traffic stop in violation of procedures): sustained (vote recorded 5–0). - Specification 4 (failure to follow on/off-duty reporting procedures): sustained (vote recorded 4–1). - Specification 5 (being evasive during an internal affairs interview): not sustained (vote recorded 3–2). - Specification 6 (conduct unbecoming): sustained (vote recorded 4–1).

During the penalty phase the commission debated suspension length, the possible inclusion of a termination held in abeyance, and whether additional training or assessment should be required to confirm the patrol special’s understanding of the rules. The commission adopted a 30-calendar-day suspension to start Feb. 15, 2012, with ten days served immediately and the remainder to be scheduled, and ordered department-arranged training and a 10-question examination to demonstrate comprehension of the interim rules and procedures for patrol specials before return to duty.

The commission noted the disciplinary history may be considered in any future proceeding but that today's penalties apply only to the sustained specifications. Tachahara said he understood the terms and would receive a written copy of the disposition.

The commission’s action followed public comment and extensive internal discussion about the clarity of agreements and the message disciplinary outcomes send to both volunteers and the public. The commission will provide the formal written disposition to Tachahara and the record will reflect the sustained specifications and the penalty imposed.