Page 4 of 5
Because of a court ruling last fall against Copley Press, the publishers of the San Diego Union-Tribune, law enforcement agencies must now keep everything related to officer discipline confidential. The Union-Tribune went to court seeking information about San Diego sheriff's deputies accused of misconduct, but the California Supreme Court shot down that request, issuing a decision forcing police and sheriff's departments across the state to drastically revamp their procedures.
For San Francisco, the Copley Press ruling means Police Commission hearings, which used to be open to the public, are now secret. Even the names of the officers facing censure are secret. Hewing to the new constraints, Chief Fong didn't name the officers when she announced the formal disciplinary proceeding against them last month.
And so, thanks to the court decision, Cohen's video is now confidential. Aside from the footage shown at the December 2005 press conference, which is posted on an array of Web sites, the remainder of the video can't be shown to the masses (or SF Weekly).
"I wish we could show the whole video," says Lewis, who figures the public wouldn't be particularly disturbed by the material. Under the post-Copley guidelines, officers have the option of opening their disciplinary hearings to the public, something Lewis intends to do: "I'm going to allow the press to come in and sit in my hearing, something most officers wouldn't want." Convinced of the absurdity of the charges, he wants people to hear all about his case.
While the department prepares the evidence against Lewis, he and a gaggle of other Bayview officers are building a case of their own, pursuing a civil suit alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and defamation, and demanding $20 million in damages.
"The lawsuit is based on the fact that my clients participated in this video and so did the Chinese-American officers, but the Chinese-American officers weren't disciplined," says attorney Waukeen McCoy, who represents Lewis, Cohen, Evanson, and 16 other officers. A prominent plaintiffs' lawyer who specializes in discrimination cases, McCoy adds that one Chinese-American cop has, in fact, been sanctioned since the suit was filed, suggesting the department's move was prompted by the officers' legal action.
"It should've been investigated thoroughly before they broadcast it to the world," argues McCoy. "Usually you perform an investigation before going to the media."
Though the lawsuit is probably a long shot — the City Attorney's office, which defends the department from civil suits, is adept at scuttling suits — McCoy makes a good point.
Generally, the SFPD handles misconduct allegations quietly, sharing little information with the media, especially before internal affairs has had an opportunity to distinguish fact from conjecture and draw some firm conclusions. Though the mayor and chief were eager to call in the media and inflate the video debacle into a scandal of epic proportions, both have been far less verbal about the many other controversies swirling around the department, such as the homicide unit's abysmal record at solving local murders, allegations that a veteran cop (with the possible knowledge of fellow officers) visited southeast Asia to have sex with children, and the remarkable frequency of officer-involved shootings.
When it comes to the videos, however, Fong and Newsom flipped the script, publicly skewering lawmen and -women after a quick, cursory probe. Perhaps the pair thought the video was prima-facie evidence of a profound malignancy in the SFPD, a Fajitagate-level situation demanding immediate action and transparency.
But at least one City Hall figure believes the mayor and chief blew up the video issue because they sensed a political opportunity. "They seized on this opportunity to hang these officers because they sensed the officers' position was indefensible," argues Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, adding that he condemns the skits. "There is every appearance the mayor has rushed to judgment and didn't wait to let the investigation play out, as he has in other, much more serious misconduct cases."
Former Capt. Rick Bruce, one of the cops tarred by the scandal, thinks the chief and mayor turned the video into a crusade in a bid to inflate their approval ratings. "You don't have to be a political science major to understand how and why this relatively minor police story morphed into a media feeding frenzy, with even the national media joining in," Bruce says. "To destroy the careers of so many very dedicated officers in exchange for a few days of media attention is really sad."
As the highest-ranking officer tied to the scandal, Bruce was of particular interest to the media; in the days following the press conference his mug was all over the news.
In one skit, Bruce, who served as captain of the station from early 2004 until mid-2005, was pictured making strange, somewhat suggestive motions with his tongue in response to a trio of female cops parodying Charlie's Angels. But Bruce had left the station four months before the clip surfaced: He resigned, went on a previously planned extended leave, and then retired. Bruce and Cohen both say the ex-captain wasn't involved in the video — the filmmaker used outtakes of Bruce culled from footage shot years earlier.
We'd love to tell you what Mayor Newsom thinks about Bruce's comments, and the video in general, but the mayor declined to speak to SF Weekly or offer any sort of comment through his four-person communications team.
Chief Fong, however, did respond to the issues raised by this story, and in a written statement she deflected criticism and expanded on her position.
"The department expects for all its members, whether on-duty or off-duty, to act in a professional manner and promote an environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. The activities depicted in these videos were neither consistent with department policy nor with the expectations of the people of San Francisco," Fong states.
