Complaints Office defies logic with ‘Fajitagate’ pursuit
By: Ken Garcia
Examiner Staff Writer
May 12, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — Whenever the Office of Citizen Complaints brings charges against some unlucky San Francisco police officer, the case should read like a drug ad with a list of all the potential harmful side effects.
“These charges could cause symptoms of nausea, dizziness, fatigue, unexplained weakness or pain, and your skin and the whites of your eyes may turn yellow. If you notice any of these signs, you should call your lawyer immediately.”
And to that, much-decorated 40-year-veteran police Capt. Greg Corrales could add a general if overwhelming sense of disbelief, followed by sharp pangs of surrealism.
Still, there is something to be said of the overreaching tendencies of the Complaints Office in its alleged pursuit of justice before the Police Commission. That overwrought display will be on full view Wednesday when Corrales finally has the chance to show the world why the office and the commission are stuck in a time warp.
It’s been nearly seven years — yes, seven years — since a street brawl involving three off-duty police officers became a runaway headline. The story was so overblown that it caused then-District Attorney Terence Hallinan to lose sight of his senses and charge the entire command staff of the Police Department with conspiracy and obstruction of justice. It pays to remember that the off-duty officers allegedly got into the beef with two bar patrons because of some steak fajitas — evolving into the ever-easy tag of “Fajitagate.” The story was overcooked and overserved, and ultimately was found to lack any substance or judicial value.
Hallinan was bounced out of office due to his daunting display of ineptness. And after years of indictments and subsequent trials, every single police officer maligned in the case was exonerated. Indeed, Corrales, who was captain of the Mission Police Station at the time and therefore the superior officer of two of the three Fajitagate cops, was found “factually innocent” by a Superior Court judge of all allegations brought by Hallinan in 2004.
But did that stop the Complaints Office from bringing charges (and multiple side effects) against Corrales that year? Of course not — why stop a lynching party when it’s already assembled under the tree?
I’d like to tell you how Corrales feels about it, but unfortunately I cannot because he’s being charged, essentially, for talking to the media about the case, comments the Complaints Office claims obstructed the investigation and discredited the Police Department.
The SFPD feels otherwise, which is why he was never disciplined by top brass. Yet against all manner of logic and numerous attempts to have the case dismissed, the Complaints Office remains in hot pursuit of Corrales for telling the media the claims of the two civilians involved in the brawl were “ludicrous” and that investigators were “bending way over backwards to the detriment of these officers.”
“What Greg was doing was defending the police officers in his squad who were being ripped apart by some members of the media,” his attorney, Bill Fazio, said. “The charges are totally misplaced and out of line. Greg would no more seek to bring discredit upon the department than he would his own family.”
And it should be some show. Corrales has taken the rare opportunity to have the much-delayed affair played out during a scheduled public hearing Wednesday before the Police Commission, a show that could allow the commission to save face by dismissing the charges or extend the embarrassment of glitches that this case has become. It should also provide a reminder to the public that this is the commission charged with helping select a new chief of police, and that it has become a very politically charged body.
Still, commissioners have a chance to do the right thing.
“We’re anxious to put on our defense, but I’m hoping it won’t get to that,” Fazio said. “I’m hoping they’ll see it the same way I do, and that Greg will be totally absolved of any wrongdoing.”
It would be hard to argue that one person interfered with an investigation in a case that was probably more over-investigated than any in recent memory.
Think of it as the biggest food fight in San Francisco’s sometimes unsavory history.
Ken Garcia appears Tuesdays and Fridays in The Examiner. Check out his blog at sfexaminer.com/opinion or e-mail him at kgarcia@sfexaminer.com.
Follow The Examiner
