02-23-2007, 08:41 AM
:( Man who filed bias suit against city is arrested
NEWS
Published 02/22/2007
by Heather Cassell
h.cassell@ebar.com
Print this Page
Send to a Friend
A candidate for the San Francisco Patrol Special Police faces loaded firearm and drug-related charges after being arrested earlier this month. The arrest happened three months after he filed a discrimination lawsuit against the city.
Willie Adams, 44, was arrested February 2, after a warrant was issued, according to the San Francisco Police Department. In San FranciscoSuperior Court Tuesday, February 13, Adams was charged with possession of methamphetamines, two pipes, and a loaded firearm. Adams pleaded not guilty toall charges.
Assistant District Attorney Diane Knoles requested that Judge Harold Kahn set Adams's bail at $100,000 claiming that she believes he is a "danger to public safety."
Randall Knox, Adams's criminal defense attorney, questioned Knoles's charge that Adams is a danger to the community and requested that thebail be set at $30,000. Knox pointed out that no additional charges had beenfiled against Adams, who had already posted $21,100 bail.
Kahn set Adams's bail at $31,100, which Adams postedimmediately after his court appearance.
During the hearing last week, Kahn was concerned about the "quasi" patrol special police and requested more information.
Kahn restricted Adams's current public relations work for the patrol special police to the office and stated that under no circumstances was Adams to have weapons or operate as a patrol special officer, despite Knoles's objections arguing that there was no such public relations position. According to Knoles, there are only patrol special police officers and assistant patrol special police officers.
"The charges are unfounded," Knox said outside thecourtroom. "He has not done anything wrong. He has a sterling reputation."
Civil case
Last November, Adams, a gay black man, filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, race,and disability due to HIV status. He filed the suit after he learned that his application to become a special patrol officer was rejected for moral turpitude.
Adams's arrest and the criminal charges are suspicious to Waukeen McCoy, Adams's attorney for his civil lawsuit.
He told the Bay Area Reporter in a telephone call February 16 that while he has "no evidence of conspiracy" he believes it's "highly probable" and he perceivesthe emerging criminal case as "unusual" because of the lawsuit against the city.
"I don't have proof," said McCoy.
When the B.A.R. asked Knox if he was aware of the civil suit Adams filed against the city he replied,"I don't know if there's a connection. The criminal case should stand on its own."
"It's suspicious that they went after me," Adams said. "I definitely believe that this whole ordeal is related to mynlawsuit."
Adams told the B.A.R.that he was humiliated throughout the lengthy hiring process for the patrolspecial police. In the lawsuit, he said that he was told, "Just to accept it." Friends warned him that he would be putting himself into "harm's way," by filing a lawsuit against the city, but Adams was already invested in becoming a patrol special officer, he said.
Adams stated in the suit that he applied as an assistantpatrol officer in late 2004 or early 2005. He wanted to serve the community. He volunteered for five years handling public relations work for San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer Jane Warner, as well as paid contracted public relations for other patrol special beats. Warner, who operates the Castro and Mission District beats, along with business owners in the Mission District,recommended and sponsored Adams for the position of the assistant patrolspecial police officer.
The patrol special police have been a part of the SFPD through the city charter since 1935 but have been around since the Gold Rushdays, according to the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Association's Website.
Patrol special police are contracted private patrol personnel paid for by San Francisco neighborhood merchants and residents, not by city taxes. Patrol special police officers can purchase the rights of aspecific area to patrol with the Police Commission's approval. Essentially patrol special officers operate as a small business to provide neighborhood security. The SFPD, however, determines who can become a patrol special officer.
Repeated delays
According to Adams's lawsuit, after repeated delays in thehiring process and inquiries regarding his application, he was told in August 2005 by Warner and SFPD Sergeant Craig Tom, who serves as the department's liaison to the patrol special police, that the application had made its way to Deputy Chief David Shinn and Chief Heather Fong for approval. But it wasn't until May 2006, after more attempts to find out the status of his application,that Adams was finally informed that his application was on Fong's desk and was going to be approved.
Adams resigned his position as vice president of a large calling center, which he declined to identify, based on the belief that his application had been verbally approved by Tom and confirmed by Warner. But his application was rejected.
Adams and Warner inquired about the reason his application was denied. Tom simply stated, according to the lawsuit, that his application was denied based on moral turpitude. Warner and Adams state that they weren't told what the basis was for moral turpitude.
"I think that they should give candidates reasons why they are denied the job," said McCoy. He told the B.A.R. that stating moral turpitude was arbitrary because it wasn't giving a reason for the application being rejected, which can lead to discrimination.
Adams filed his lawsuit on November 14, 2006. He charged the SFPD, which oversees the hiring process of the patrol special police, of discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and physical disability dueto HIV, with the intention of inflicting emotional distress. In the suit, Adams stated "no African American applicants were hired to work in the SanFrancisco Patrol Special Police in over seven years" and the "last homosexual applicant hired was in April 2004."
Adams also stated in the lawsuit that Tom was aware of his HIV status and was informed that it was "under control" and that he communicated these facts to Police Commissioner Theresa Sparks through e-mail.When the B.A.R. asked Sparks about her knowledge of Adams's disability and sexual orientation, she said that she couldn't recall knowing his HIV status or that he is gay.
McCoy told the B.A.R.that there are many questions that need answering at this point, and stated that Adams's application was denied twice. He declined to provide the reason Adams's application was rejected the first time because the statute of limitations passed and it didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit Adams filed last year.
According to Adams the entire hiring situation and the lawsuit against the city has devastated him. The denial of the position has left him with no income other than the two beats 141 and 144 that he owns inthe St. Francis Woods and Ingleside/Taraval areas and the contracted public relations work with the patrol special police.
Sparks couldn't confirm if Adams owned any beat or not. The Police Commission regulates and issues sales of beat ownerships.
Adams provided the B.A.R. with copies of the contracts of the March 20, 2006 sale of the beats to him by Cliff Stevens. Stevens confirmed by phone to the B.A.R. the sale of the beats to Adams.
Adams stated in the lawsuit that he went through a rigorous hiring process with the SFPD that subjected him to three separate background checks. Adams also informed Tom about two criminal offenses that were expunged from his record and were over 20 years old, according to the suit.
Adams claimed in the lawsuit that two other people who applied at the same time he did didn't go through the background investigations and were approved by Fong, who has final authority on patrol special police hiring.
Patrol special police are supervised by the SFPD and overseen by the Police Commission, creating an intricate relationship that allows patrol special police to do more than standard security guards but not all of the capabilities of a police officer. According to the SFPD's Web site, patrol special police are not regulated by the California Penal Code nor are they sworn officers or members of the police department, but they do follow some procedures and regulations.
Warner told the B.A.R.that some of the special police have been sworn in as officers while others haven't. Therefore, special police have made arrests and written reports. Also under city charter codes and due to being structured into the police department they are considered members of the department.
Sparks said that the situation between the special police and the SFPD is "a mess."
"They are contradictory now and don't make a lot of sense," said Sparks, who is currently in the process of "overhauling" the rules and regulations of the patrol special police and SFPD that were written in 1999.
According to Sparks, there are areas that are conflicts of interest between the special police and the SFPD, particularly with the Administrative Code Section 10B that allows businesses and residents to contract with the SFPD to hire police officers after hours at one and a halftimes their salary plus the administrative costs. The conflicts have arisen because the special patrol and SFPD are in competition for private security services that can be offered by the police under Section 10B. Patrol special police provide similar services at a lower cost.
The City Attorney's office has denied all of Adams's allegations in his civil lawsuit. In the response filed with the court on January 12, the City Attorney's office stated that Adams wasn't even a city employee. The legal file also states that Adams failed to exhaust all other avenues to resolve his issue as required by state law.
City attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey stated that the city hasresponded to the complaint and declined further comment due to the fact "it's a matter of litigation."
"This is nothing more than the city's attempt to destroy his reputation," wrote Warner in an e-mail. "Willie is the nicest, kindest man I have ever met and does not deserve this."
Editor's note: Jane Warner has written the B.A.R.'s crimecolumn.
*
*
NEWS
Published 02/22/2007
by Heather Cassell
h.cassell@ebar.com
Print this Page
Send to a Friend
A candidate for the San Francisco Patrol Special Police faces loaded firearm and drug-related charges after being arrested earlier this month. The arrest happened three months after he filed a discrimination lawsuit against the city.
Willie Adams, 44, was arrested February 2, after a warrant was issued, according to the San Francisco Police Department. In San FranciscoSuperior Court Tuesday, February 13, Adams was charged with possession of methamphetamines, two pipes, and a loaded firearm. Adams pleaded not guilty toall charges.
Assistant District Attorney Diane Knoles requested that Judge Harold Kahn set Adams's bail at $100,000 claiming that she believes he is a "danger to public safety."
Randall Knox, Adams's criminal defense attorney, questioned Knoles's charge that Adams is a danger to the community and requested that thebail be set at $30,000. Knox pointed out that no additional charges had beenfiled against Adams, who had already posted $21,100 bail.
Kahn set Adams's bail at $31,100, which Adams postedimmediately after his court appearance.
During the hearing last week, Kahn was concerned about the "quasi" patrol special police and requested more information.
Kahn restricted Adams's current public relations work for the patrol special police to the office and stated that under no circumstances was Adams to have weapons or operate as a patrol special officer, despite Knoles's objections arguing that there was no such public relations position. According to Knoles, there are only patrol special police officers and assistant patrol special police officers.
"The charges are unfounded," Knox said outside thecourtroom. "He has not done anything wrong. He has a sterling reputation."
Civil case
Last November, Adams, a gay black man, filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, race,and disability due to HIV status. He filed the suit after he learned that his application to become a special patrol officer was rejected for moral turpitude.
Adams's arrest and the criminal charges are suspicious to Waukeen McCoy, Adams's attorney for his civil lawsuit.
He told the Bay Area Reporter in a telephone call February 16 that while he has "no evidence of conspiracy" he believes it's "highly probable" and he perceivesthe emerging criminal case as "unusual" because of the lawsuit against the city.
"I don't have proof," said McCoy.
When the B.A.R. asked Knox if he was aware of the civil suit Adams filed against the city he replied,"I don't know if there's a connection. The criminal case should stand on its own."
"It's suspicious that they went after me," Adams said. "I definitely believe that this whole ordeal is related to mynlawsuit."
Adams told the B.A.R.that he was humiliated throughout the lengthy hiring process for the patrolspecial police. In the lawsuit, he said that he was told, "Just to accept it." Friends warned him that he would be putting himself into "harm's way," by filing a lawsuit against the city, but Adams was already invested in becoming a patrol special officer, he said.
Adams stated in the suit that he applied as an assistantpatrol officer in late 2004 or early 2005. He wanted to serve the community. He volunteered for five years handling public relations work for San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer Jane Warner, as well as paid contracted public relations for other patrol special beats. Warner, who operates the Castro and Mission District beats, along with business owners in the Mission District,recommended and sponsored Adams for the position of the assistant patrolspecial police officer.
The patrol special police have been a part of the SFPD through the city charter since 1935 but have been around since the Gold Rushdays, according to the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Association's Website.
Patrol special police are contracted private patrol personnel paid for by San Francisco neighborhood merchants and residents, not by city taxes. Patrol special police officers can purchase the rights of aspecific area to patrol with the Police Commission's approval. Essentially patrol special officers operate as a small business to provide neighborhood security. The SFPD, however, determines who can become a patrol special officer.
Repeated delays
According to Adams's lawsuit, after repeated delays in thehiring process and inquiries regarding his application, he was told in August 2005 by Warner and SFPD Sergeant Craig Tom, who serves as the department's liaison to the patrol special police, that the application had made its way to Deputy Chief David Shinn and Chief Heather Fong for approval. But it wasn't until May 2006, after more attempts to find out the status of his application,that Adams was finally informed that his application was on Fong's desk and was going to be approved.
Adams resigned his position as vice president of a large calling center, which he declined to identify, based on the belief that his application had been verbally approved by Tom and confirmed by Warner. But his application was rejected.
Adams and Warner inquired about the reason his application was denied. Tom simply stated, according to the lawsuit, that his application was denied based on moral turpitude. Warner and Adams state that they weren't told what the basis was for moral turpitude.
"I think that they should give candidates reasons why they are denied the job," said McCoy. He told the B.A.R. that stating moral turpitude was arbitrary because it wasn't giving a reason for the application being rejected, which can lead to discrimination.
Adams filed his lawsuit on November 14, 2006. He charged the SFPD, which oversees the hiring process of the patrol special police, of discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and physical disability dueto HIV, with the intention of inflicting emotional distress. In the suit, Adams stated "no African American applicants were hired to work in the SanFrancisco Patrol Special Police in over seven years" and the "last homosexual applicant hired was in April 2004."
Adams also stated in the lawsuit that Tom was aware of his HIV status and was informed that it was "under control" and that he communicated these facts to Police Commissioner Theresa Sparks through e-mail.When the B.A.R. asked Sparks about her knowledge of Adams's disability and sexual orientation, she said that she couldn't recall knowing his HIV status or that he is gay.
McCoy told the B.A.R.that there are many questions that need answering at this point, and stated that Adams's application was denied twice. He declined to provide the reason Adams's application was rejected the first time because the statute of limitations passed and it didn't have anything to do with the lawsuit Adams filed last year.
According to Adams the entire hiring situation and the lawsuit against the city has devastated him. The denial of the position has left him with no income other than the two beats 141 and 144 that he owns inthe St. Francis Woods and Ingleside/Taraval areas and the contracted public relations work with the patrol special police.
Sparks couldn't confirm if Adams owned any beat or not. The Police Commission regulates and issues sales of beat ownerships.
Adams provided the B.A.R. with copies of the contracts of the March 20, 2006 sale of the beats to him by Cliff Stevens. Stevens confirmed by phone to the B.A.R. the sale of the beats to Adams.
Adams stated in the lawsuit that he went through a rigorous hiring process with the SFPD that subjected him to three separate background checks. Adams also informed Tom about two criminal offenses that were expunged from his record and were over 20 years old, according to the suit.
Adams claimed in the lawsuit that two other people who applied at the same time he did didn't go through the background investigations and were approved by Fong, who has final authority on patrol special police hiring.
Patrol special police are supervised by the SFPD and overseen by the Police Commission, creating an intricate relationship that allows patrol special police to do more than standard security guards but not all of the capabilities of a police officer. According to the SFPD's Web site, patrol special police are not regulated by the California Penal Code nor are they sworn officers or members of the police department, but they do follow some procedures and regulations.
Warner told the B.A.R.that some of the special police have been sworn in as officers while others haven't. Therefore, special police have made arrests and written reports. Also under city charter codes and due to being structured into the police department they are considered members of the department.
Sparks said that the situation between the special police and the SFPD is "a mess."
"They are contradictory now and don't make a lot of sense," said Sparks, who is currently in the process of "overhauling" the rules and regulations of the patrol special police and SFPD that were written in 1999.
According to Sparks, there are areas that are conflicts of interest between the special police and the SFPD, particularly with the Administrative Code Section 10B that allows businesses and residents to contract with the SFPD to hire police officers after hours at one and a halftimes their salary plus the administrative costs. The conflicts have arisen because the special patrol and SFPD are in competition for private security services that can be offered by the police under Section 10B. Patrol special police provide similar services at a lower cost.
The City Attorney's office has denied all of Adams's allegations in his civil lawsuit. In the response filed with the court on January 12, the City Attorney's office stated that Adams wasn't even a city employee. The legal file also states that Adams failed to exhaust all other avenues to resolve his issue as required by state law.
City attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey stated that the city hasresponded to the complaint and declined further comment due to the fact "it's a matter of litigation."
"This is nothing more than the city's attempt to destroy his reputation," wrote Warner in an e-mail. "Willie is the nicest, kindest man I have ever met and does not deserve this."
Editor's note: Jane Warner has written the B.A.R.'s crimecolumn.
*
*