Did Police Commissioner Yanez Access and Use Leaked Confidential SFPD Video Evidence?

SFPD Chief Scott’s must explain his double standard for public defenders versus his officers

Apparent SFPD bodycam evidence used by Police Commissioner Yanez

On February 22, 2019, in a dinky Telegraph Hill apartment, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi died from a mixture of cocaine and alcohol.   Most SFPD officers viewed Adachi as an adversarial, and it was alleged that this was the motivation for an SFPD insider to leak the details of Adachi’s death to a journalist, Bryan Carmody. 

During his tenure, SFPD Chief Will Scott has maintained an accommodative relationship with the Public Defender’s Office, and he was determined to find the leak. Standing in the chief’s way was the California’s Shield Law (California Evidence Code section 1070), which protects journalists, like Carmody, from  having to reveal their sources. 

Nevertheless, between Adachi’s death and May 10, 2019, SFPD served five search warrants on Carmody and his electronic devices.  SFPD investigators circumvented the California Shield Law by vaguely describing to judges that Carmody was a "freelance videographer/communications manager."   That is, despite Carmody having press credentials approved by SFPD.  On May 10, 2019, SFPD executed a physical search warrant on Carmody’s residence. 

By July 2019,  a judge had already quashed the search warrants as invalid.  A year later, the city awarded Carmody with $369,000 for violating his rights with an improper search warrant.  

The issue before us is whether Chief Scott was principled about the leak on the cause of Adachi’s death, or did he feel an acute responsibility to provide special privileges to public defenders and their spouses.

How will Chief Scott address the Police Commissioner Yanez leak?

Last week, the photo at the top of this article was obtained from SFPD’s custody of evidence, and was used by Police Commissioner Jesus Yanez and his wife, public defender Ilona Solomon, for a personal matter.  The photo was turned over to me, and I cropped the photograph to protect the witness.^[i] 

There are numerous issues with this photograph that appears to have been illegally leaked from SFPD’s evidence.

During a March 13, 2024 aggravated assault arrest (case # 240.163.624), numerous SFPD police officers allege that Commissioner Yanez and his wife criminally obstructed their investigation and efforts to arrest a fleeing violent felon. (Discussed in my first article.)  

After hearing from numerous SFPD officers’ narratives on Yanez’s involvement, evidence of his back-channel texts to SFPD, and the coincidence that his name was mysteriously withheld from the incident report, many members of SFPD described this as a cover up. 

To my April 10, 2024 public records request to view the SFPD bodycam footage, SFPD claimed they couldn’t release video because there was an open investigation.  However, at the November 6, 2024 Police Commission hearing, Chief Scott said Yanez and his wife were never investigated. Why not? Since the chief said there was no open investigation, I immediately issued another public records request for SFPD’s bodycam footage of Yanez and Solomon (wife).  On November 8^th, SFPD completely contradicted the chief and said that because there was still an open investigation, they still couldn’t release the bodycam video.^[ii]  I’m sorry Chief, but that smells too.

Yanez must account for how he received bodycam evidence from SFPD

Without Chief Scott’s protection, Yanez and Solomon would have, at a minimum, been investigated for obstructing an arrest.  They can rightly be viewed as suspects in a crime they somehow later illegally obtained evidence from.

Yanez must account for:

1)        How he obtained SFPD bodycam that Chief Scott is not releasing to the public? 

2)        Was this bodycam footage leaked from inside SFPD, or did he obtain it through his position as a police commissioner?

3)        For what purpose did he and his wife need to acquire SFPD evidentiary bodycam film from an incident they were deeply involved in?

4)        Not only is it questionable why he possessed part of the video, but what gave him the right to embezzle the video for a personal matter?  Ilona, I’d be happy to explain the definition of a “conspiracy to embezzle.”

5)        Were the timestamps on the bodycam video used to signal to the recipient of the photo that he has juice with Chief Scott?  (Similar to the audio of him bragging about his relations with SFPD.)

Many readers will assume that Solomon obtained this footage through her position with the Public Defender’s Office and the criminal matter against Farnon for burning a woman’s face with a butane flame.  However, Farnon hired private defense counsel, Pamela Herzig, to represent him.  So, bodycam evidence should not have flowed through the Public Defender’s Office. 

Chief Scott, how will you investigate this leak?

I concluded my last article about Yanez’s lying to the public and his violations of the Brown Act with: “Chief, how would you handle it if someone, other than a police officer, leaked just a small portion of the bodycam video that you are trying so hard to protect?  Would you apply the same dedication to track down the source of that leak?  I’d love to find out.”

So here we are, Chief. You need to investigate this leak with the same zeal (legal zeal, that is) that you applied to the Adachi leak.

First, unlike Carmody, a journalist and private citizen, Yanez’s emails on the SF.gov platform are public information.  You can search the SFPD/Police Commission email platform for correspondence with Solomon and/or Yanez.  Please don’t ask Yanez to provide you with his emails.  Use I.T. to dig up Yanez’s old emails.  You can also use word searches to narrow the scope.

Second, texts to and from Yanez’s cellphone need to be searched for contacts with SFPD.  The search must be conducted via Yanez’s cellphone carrier, not based on him voluntarily turning over his texts.  Best to paper this one up, Chief.

Third, Commissioner Yanez needs to be interviewed by an independent party.

This is an opportunity, Chief.  We all know SFPD is struggling to recruit officers.  Part of the problem is the Mission-Bernal defund corridor.  But Chief, part of the problem is you gifting more privileges to public defenders than the officers that serve you.  That does not build loyalty or motivation.  Now that we know Yanez and Solomon have the bodycam video, who are you protecting by preventing the public from viewing the video and learning this couple’s instability?

Chief, resolve this by releasing the video like you do for officer-involved-shootings!  Be consistent.

---

^[i] Numerous SFPD officers have confirmed that this appears to be SFPD bodycam footage.  The timestamp is March 14, 2024, 3-hours ahead of the actual March 13, 2023 incident.  Numerous officers confirmed to me that bodycam times are not always accurate.  The full photo has several SFPD vehicles in the background, and the building in the background is the one that exists across the street from Solomon and Yanez’s former principal residence.

^[ii] Tristan Farnum is the person that burned a woman’s face with a butane lighter.  Police Commissioner Yanez and public defender Solomon helped hide Farnum from SFPD.  His case has been resolved and he was assigned diversion.  Thus, there is no open case against Farnum either.