Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco Police Commission denies motion to dismiss disciplinary charges against officers
Summary
After hearing defense and OCC arguments over whether officers received legally sufficient notice under Government Code section 3304(d), the commission voted unanimously to deny a motion to dismiss disciplinary charges against several officers, including Lieutenant Perra.
The San Francisco Police Commission on Aug. 3 heard competing legal arguments over whether the Office of Citizen Complaints provided legally sufficient notice that would satisfy Government Code section 3304(d) and voted to deny a defense motion to dismiss the disciplinary charges against several officers, including Lieutenant Perra.
Defense counsel James Lazard argued the OCC failed to provide the required specific notice within one year, citing the Soulier and Sanchez decisions and telling the commission, "To this date, Lieutenant Perra has never been told of the proposed disciplinary action in this matter." Lazard said that without specific notice an officer cannot meaningfully respond or negotiate a disposition and that the cases require a clearer "proposed" penalty than the department has provided.
Jean Field, appearing for the Office of Citizen Complaints, replied that the charges as served gave adequate notice of commission-level discipline and that the commission previously considered and rejected a dismissal claim. Field said the charges notified the officer he faced possible commission-level penalties — suspension up to 90 days, fines or termination — and that precedent does not compel dismissal in this record.
After questioning from commissioners about the statutory text and whether general notice of commission-level discipline satisfies due-process requirements, the commission convened a closed session to deliberate. Upon reconvening, the commission announced it had met and "decided to deny the motion." In a roll-call read in open session, President Rennie, Vice President David Campos, Commissioners Petre de Jesus, Joe Marshall, Theresa Sparks and Barrancier each voted "Aye." The motion carries.
The commission’s decision preserves the charges and the administrative process; the commission did not announce further remedial steps in open session. The panel also declined to disclose the closed-session discussion. The hearing record shows counsel debated the narrow statutory question at length; the commission’s formal denial means the underlying disciplinary matter will proceed to the next stage of the commission process.
