Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Investigating Officers: Sergeant Ron Hoekwater Lieutenant Roxane Gruenheid Document Prepared by: Sergeant Ron Hoekwater Internal Affairs 2014-037 I Confidential document. Do not copy. Only non-involved administrative personnel may review this document. I interview recordings are maintained on file by Internal Affairs and are available for review by Command Staff upon request. Required copies must be obtained from Internal Affairs only and will be redacted when appropriate. This document must be returned to Internal Affairs along with all associated documents and attachments immediately following administrative review. CONFIDENTIAL n: 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Involved Employee: Deputy Steve Cho Final Disposition Allegation Final Disposition Unbecoming Conduct Unlawful Conduct 5v: 77-} zit-?ED Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum Truthfulness Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum Off-Duty Demeanor Employee Personal Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or ?V?7/?f/Wj Criminal Investigation CONFIDENTIAL 1 LA. 4 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Table of Contents Recommended Findings Page 3 Witness List Page 4 Attachments Page 5 Case Synopsis Page 6 Investigation Page 8 Deputy? statement Page 13 Deputy?statement Page 17 Deputy Jonathan Scanlan?s statement Page 21 Deputy Kook Kim's statement Page 21 Deputy Gabriella Arnaudo?s statement Page 24 Deputy Michael Santos? statement Page 25 Deputy Ryan Montoya?s statement Page 26 Deputy Qais Habib's statement Page 27 Deputy Steve Cho's statement Page 27 Conclusions Page 41 CONFIDENTIAL 2 LA. 11? 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Recommended Findings Name Allegation Recommended Finding Deputy Steve Unbecoming Conduct Unlawful SUSTAINED Cho Conduct Office of the Sheriff Propriety and SUSTAINED Decorum Truthfulness Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum - Off-Duty Demeanor SUSTAINED Employee Personal Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or SUSTAINED Involvement in an Arrest or Criminal Investigation CONFIDENTIAL LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Witness List Deputy Contra Costa Counti Office of the Sheriff Deputy? Contra Costa Counti Office of the Sheriff Deputy Jonathan Scanlan Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Custody Services Bureau, Detention Division, West County Detention Facility Deputy Kook Kim Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Field Operations Bureau, Special Operations, Air Support Deputy Gabriella Arnaudo Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Patrol FTO Deputy Michael Santos Deputy Gabriella Arnaudo Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Bay Station Deputy Ryan Montoya Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Custody Services Bureau, Detention Division, Martinez Detention Facility Deputy Qais Habib Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Muir Station CONFIDENTIAL 4 LA. 2014?037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Attachments 1. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) report 2. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS ICE) report 3. HBO Petition for Alien Relative 4. l-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status 5. G-325A Biographic Information for Deputy Steve Cho and- (Submitted with [-485) 6. I-864EZ Affidavit of Support 7. I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence 8. Time line of sequence of events and corresponding description 9. Photos submitted to immigration by Deputy Cho and -in support of their pe??ons 10.Property record for residence located at? Vacaville CONFIDENTIAL 5 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry Synopsis On December 31, 2010, called the Department of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI ti line to report Deputy Steve Cho was engaged in a fraudulent mam?a a with a Japanese nationaltemporary visa". Deputy Cho admitted _he was involved in a fraudulent marriage and received an unknown sum of money ("thousands" according to for marrying-in furtherance of her immigrationstatus in the US. He also admitted _he would receive an additional sum of money once _gained her permanent resident status at which point they would file for divorce. Deputy- stated she was involved in a romantic relationship with Deputy Cho from October 2009 November 2010. They moved in together in April-2010 after entering into a one year lease agreement. She found documents (tax documents, copy of driver license, marriage certi?cate) related to Deputy Cho's marriage while she and Deputy Cho were living together. Deputy - also said she and Deputy Cho were Their relationshi ended short! after. DHS ICE conducted an investigation into the alle ations and discovered Deputy I _attended the wedding of Deputy Cho and Deputy-told Special Agents she was involved in a relationship with Deputy Cho when he asked her to attend his wedding. Deputy _said she was "pretty sure" Deputy Cho received "$5,000 or $10,000" to marry- and said the marriage was ?to help out a friend from Cal." Deputy _atlended the wedding on October 7, 2008 in San Francisco. She told Special Agents that several Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Deputies assigned to the West County Detention Facility, were aware of the fraudulent marriage. Deputy Cho and _submitted a joint petition to USCIS on May 5, 2011 and _was granted permanent resident status. USCIS was not aware of the active investigation into the marriage of Deputy Cho and _at the time they granted _permanent resident status. Deputy Cho and - both denied they engaged in a fraudulent marriage during their interviews with USCIS agents. investigators discovered Deputy Cho and _?led for divorce in October 2013, shortly after Deputy Cho was confronted with the allegations by USCIS Agents. Ci l'xl I ti} 5 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Based on their investigation, USCIS agents determined Deputy Cho was in violation of felony Federal Government Codes 8 USC 1325(c) Marriage Immigration Fraud, 18 USC 1546 Fraud, and 18 USC 1001 - Falsify Statements or Entries. The case was submitted to the US Attorney?s Of?ce. who declined to ?le charges at this time; the federal investigation remains open. IAL 7 LA. 14 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Investigation On March 11, 2014, I was assigned this case by Lieutenant Gruenheid. I reviewed all the documentation associated with this case, which included memos from Assistant Sheriff Williams and Captain Simmons as well as reports from Department of Homeland Security. Also included was a sworn written statement from Deputr to Department of Homeland Security, a cc of Deputy Cho and marria certificate, a cepy of Deputies Cho and? rental agreement for -Walnut Creek, and administrative documents (healthcare and dental enrollment forms, etc.) from Contra Costa County Human Resources. On March 19, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy- Deputy- said she and Deputy Cho became involved in a romantic relationship in October 2009. They entered into a one ear lease agreement for an apartment in Walnut Creek on April 1, 2010. Deputy discovered a folder in their residence that contained tax documents, copies of driver licenses, a marriage certificate, and other documents that indicated Deputy Cho was married. When Deiuti confronted Deputy Cho about the documents, he told her the female, was his wife and claimed he had already told Deputy-about his marriage. He explained to De uty- it was a ?sham? wedding. Deputy- said Deputy Cho told he wanted to live in the US, but her student or work visa was set to expire. The proposal was for Deputy Cho to marry- He would receive either $1,000 or $2,000 up front and another $1,000 after-was granted her citizenship. Deputy Cho told her he and-just had to ?fool? the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Deputy Cho explained he and -?set up mock birthday parties and took pictures? and rehearsed for their interviews with INS. There was no other commitment. They would file for divorce once -gained her permanent residency status. Deputy Cho also told Deputy-that Deputy- had attended his wedding. Deputy - said Deputy Cho had ?jokingly" mentioned he was married early in their relationship, but she did not take him seriously. CONFIDENTIAL I.A. H: 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL On December 31, 2010,?contacted the Department of Homeland Security "tip-line? to report Deputy Cho?s fraudulent marriage. The report ultimately resulted in an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security. On March 24 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy? Deputy described her relationship with Deputy Cho as She was certain Deputy Cho lived at the apartment alone (she never saw any women?s clothing at the apartment and there were no other indications a female lived at the apartment). Deputy-said one day Deputy Cho told her he was getting married and asked if she could do him a favor and come to the wedding with him; she agreed to go. Deputy Cho told her he met- through a ?friend from Cal." Deputy?said she made assumptions the marriage was for immigration purposes. _She also said there was talk at WCDF that Deputy Cho received $5,000 or $10,000 for the marriage but she did not know if any money was exchanged. Deputy said she and Deputy Cho drove to the wedding together and then left together after the wedding. she and Deputy Cho attended the wedding of (then) Deputies De ut Cho became extremely intoxicated soon after arriving at the reception. Deputy left the reception without Deputy Cho. Their relationship ended shortly thereafter. On March 25, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy Jonathan Scanlan. Deputy Scanlan said he worked with Deputy Cho at the West County Detention Facility CONFIDENTIAL 9 1r 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL (WCDF) but did not associate with him outside work. Deputy Scanlan said he had no knowledge of Deputy Cho's marriage or any of the rumors concerning the marriage. On March 26, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy Gabrielle Arnaudo. Deputy Arnaudo said she and Deputy Cho were assigned to the same team (green team) at WCDF for at least two shifts. She described their relationship as a friendship but did not socialize with him alone outside work. She was aware Deputy Cho was involved in a romantic relationship with Deputy and later Deputy Deputy Arnaudo was not aware Deputy Cho was married until he was placed on Administrative Leave; she was assigned to Danville PD at the time. On March 26, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and interviewed Deputy Kook Kim. Deputy Kim is Deputy Cho?s brother-in?law. He initially said he and Deputy Cho purchased a house in Vacaville together (the house Deputy Cho and-listed as their residence with immigration). He later admitted Deputy Cho purchased the house because he (Deputy Kim) was not able to secure a mortgage loan due to a recent short-sale. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho was required to list the Vacaville address as his primary residence for the purpose of complying with the terms of the mortgage agreement. Deputy Cho, however, maintained a separate residence in Walnut Creek. Deputy Cho's name was on the title of the house and all the utilities were in his name; Deputy Kim paid forthe mortgage and utilities. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho and his wife -never lived at the residence. Deputy Cho would at times spend the night at his house; Deputy Kim considered Deputy Cho to be more of ?a relative who was visiting rather than someone that lived with him." He saw-at his residence twice. She would receive some mail (primarily credit card applications) at his residence. Regarding the marriage, Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho came to his house to inform him and his wife he and -were married. Deputy Kim and his wife did not question Deputy Cho about the marriage. Deputy Kim said he did not know anything about- or her resident status and also denied any knowledge of Deputy Cho marrying-for the purpose of helping her gain her permanent resident Alien status in the US. On April 2, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy Michael Santos. Deputy Santos said he heard rumors that Deputy Cho was involved in a relationship with Deputy-and later Deputy - He heard Deputy Cho was married but could not remember where he heard it; Deputy Cho never talked about his wife, his marriage, or anything about his personal life. Deputy Santos said he never heard Deputy Cho "brag" about being paid for the marriage and did not hear other deputies talk about it. While he was assigned at WCDF he had heard the marriage was for immigration purposes but could not remember where he learned the information. Deputy Santos was not aware other deputies attending Deputy Cho?s wedding. 10 LA. nc 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL On April 2, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy Ryan Montoya. Deputy Montoya attended the basic police academy with Deputy Cho. They became friends once they were assigned at WCDF. Deputy Montoya heard Deputy Cho was in a dating relationship with Deputy- but was not aware they lived together. He was not aware Deputy Cho was involved in a dating relationship with Deputy - He also did not know Deputy Cho was married or heard any rumors about it at work. Deputy Montoya said he did not know much about Deputy Cho?s personal life because they never talked about it. On April 22, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and I interviewed Deputy Qais Habib. Deputy Habib said he considered Deputy Cho to be a "good friend" and would associate with him at work as well as off-duty. He had been to Deputy Cho?s apartment in Walnut Creek once. It appeared Deputy Cho lived at the apartment by himself; there was no indication anyone else lived there. Deputy Habib said he knew about Deputies Cho and -s relationship and had been to a social gathering at a condo the shared. He had heard rumors Deputy Cho was in a datin? relationship with Deputy h; Deputy Cho never spoke about Deputy Deputy Habib said he had heard from other deputies that Deputy Cho was married. He saw Deputy Cho wear a wedding band, when he was first assigned to WCDF with him. Deputy Cho never spoke to him about his marriage and never spoke to him about his wife. Deputy Habib said Deputy Cho was a very private person and never spoke to him about his personal life. Deputy Habib said he never heard any rumors that Deputy Cho?s marriage was for immigration purposes or if there was any money involved. On May 2, 2014, Lieutenant Gruenheid and interviewed Deputy Steve Cho. Deputy Cho was represented by Julia Hickman, Law Firm of Rains, Lucia Stern. Deputy Cho said he met-throu a mutual friend named - He was not able to provide any other details about i Deputy Cho said -visited him often at his apartment at Walnut Creek, while they were dating but never moved in with him at that location prior to their marriage. Their relationship progressed and they ultimately married. Deputy Cho described Deputy as a ?co?worker" and ?work?out partner" and was adamant they were not involved in a dating relationship. 11 fl: 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy Cho said - moved in with him (at Walnut Creek) after they were married. He insisted it was her "residence? and that they ?lived together" at the location; it was also the address she listed as her primary residence with immigration. He clarified that his definition of ?residence? was ?wherever I live, she lives. Basically where you say your residence is, where you get mail; something that is stable. I never had a stable place or a location I define as a place where I lay my head." Deputy Cho said based on that definition he would consider ?Franklin Canyon Golf Course" as his residence, because he slept there many times on his way home from work. When asked to give us his definition of ?living together? Deputy Cho said, ?She lives with me, so she can come and go at my place whenever she feels like it.? Deputy Cho said during this time-maintained the room she rented at a home in Oakland. Deputy Cho said he may have "jokingly? told Deputy-he was involved in a ?fake marriage" because he did not want eo le to know things about him. He also said he joked about getting married becauseHneeded a green card. Deputy Cho said he picked up Deputy?and then-on the day of the wedding and drove to San Francisco together. They had lunch following the wedding; he then dropped off-first and then Deputy_ He could not remember what he did the night of his wedding. Deputy Cho said - hired an immigration attorney to prepare the immigration documents they submitted to INS. He ?briefly" looked over the paperwork before signing them. He was aware he was signing the immigration documents under the penalty of perjury, indicating the information to be correct. Deputy Cho said he and-lived together (according to his definition of ?living together?) from the time they were married (October 7, 2003) until 2012. When asked about Deputy -, Deputy Cho said, He and De ut entered into a one year lease agreement for an apartment at- Walnut Creek, on April 1, 2010. Deputy Cho claimed it was also 5 residence, again stating she ?came over whenever she wanted or needed.? Deputy Cho said he moved in with Deputy-to save money and- On May 13, 2010, Deputy Cho purchased a residence at_ Vacaville with the agreement his brother-in-law (Deputy Kook Kim) would eventually purchase the house from him. Deputy Cho insisted he,- Deputy Kim and Deputy Kim's family lived at the Vacaville residence. Deputy Cho said he only lived at the Vacaville location ?for a little bit" and was still renting the property with Deputy-in Walnut Creek (The Vacaville address was also the address he and -submitted to INS as her 12 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL residence). He explained he spent most of his time in his Walnut Creek apartment but considered the Vacaville location to be his (and -s) ?residence." Deputy Cho said he would list his car as his residence if he had to consider where he spent most of his time. Deputy Cho denied his marriage to- was fraudulent and was for immigration purposes. He also denied he received any money in exchange to marry Deputy?s statement Deputy - has been employed with the Contra Costa Count Office of the Sheriff for 14 iears. She is currently assigned to theh Deputy-said she has known Deputy Cho since 2008. She initially met him while participating in the ?Baker to Vegas" relay run event. Deputy - transferred to the Detention Division, West County Detention Facility (WCDF), where Deputy Cho was assigned. She became romantically involved with Deputy Cho around October 2009. Deputy- said she and Deputy Cho moved in together at? Walnut Creek, beginning on April 2010. She and Deputy Cho were on the lease agreement together; it was a one year lease agreement from April 1, 2010 March 21, 2011. Deputy - said she found a green folder in their apartment. The folder contained a copy of Deputy Cho's driver license, a copy of an unknown female?s driver license, tax information, W-2?s, receipts, and bills. Deputy said she asked Deputy Cho about the content of the folder. Deputy Cho told her the female was his wife. He said he was married and claimed he had already told her about it. Deputy Cho said it was the girl that his friend from Berkeley asked him to marry. He told Deputy-it was a ?sham? wedding; it was not real and said he was not cheating on her. Deputy- said Deputy Cho ?'okingly" told her he was married at some point early in their relationship. Deputy?said there were never any calls from other girls, no trips to other girl?s homes, there was never any mention of the marriage, and neither of them ever talked about it. Deputy- said she met Deputy Cho's sister and his CONFIDENTIAL 13 rF 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL family, and just thought it was odd he was married. Deputy Cho told her he was a ?member of a secret society." Deputy-said, ?He just has a strange eclectic sense of humor? and she did not take the fact that he said he was married serious until she found the papers in the folder. Deputy- said Deputy Cho told her-was from Japan and was a friend of someone he went to UC Berkeley with. -wanted to live in the US, but her student or work visa was about to expire. The proposal was for Deputy Cho to marry- He would receive either $1,000 or $2,000 up front and another $1,000 after -was granted her citizenship. Deputy Cho and-just had to ?fool? the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They ?set up mock birthday parties and took pictures? to provide proof of their relationship. They also rehearsed for their interviews with INS. There was no other commitment. They planned to file for divorce once -gained her permanent residency status. Deputy Cho mentioned that-s parents were against their marria because Deputy Cho was a Korean national. He also told her Deputy was at the wedding and said, ?She (Deputy thought it was funny so she wanted to come see it." He also said that people at work knew and that it ?was no big deal." Deputy said there was no further mention of anything (concerning the marriage) until she found the documents. Deputy Cho had his own a artment but still came to see her. Deputy did not tell Deputy Cho Deputy- said she has never met Deputy- said her relationship with Deputy Cho deteriorated after she had found 14 LA. ff 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL - Deputy Cho had not attempted to contact her since he became aware of the federal investigation. They saw each other at the Sheriff?s Of?ce Range approximately six months after the incident (in April or May 2011). They initially had a casual conversation and shared text messages over the course of several days. CONFIDENTIAL 15 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL They have not talked since that incident; they have had interactions at work when Deputy Cho was in the patrol field training program assigned to Bay Point, but their subsequent contacts were professional. Deputy-said on September 6, 2013, she was interviewed by Special Agents from Homeland Security about the information Deputy-said she changed her phone number and email addresses. She also had to change the security pass codes to her credit cards after she discovered Deputy Cho still had one of her credit card numbers and paid several bills (cable TV bill and dental bill) using her credit card. Deputy -estimated he charged approximately $260 on one of her credit cards. She called Sergeant Gary Clark, who was assigned to WCDF at the time, to ask for advice on how to deal with the situation, because Deputy Cho refused to answer her calls. A short time later, Deputy Cho called her and told her he would send her a check for the total amount he had charged on her credit card. Deputy - said she only spoke to Deputy Ken Marchese? about the incident. I showed Deputy-a copy of-'s DMV photo; she confirmed it was similar to the photo copy of the driver license she had found with the documents. CONFIDENTIAL 16 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy statement Deputy_ has been employed with the Contra Costa Count Office of the Sh r' for 7 iears. She has been assiined to the Deputy _said she has known Deputy Cho since she was originally assigned to the West County Detention Facility (August 2, 2007). They were assigned to the same shift (green team). They became friends and worked out or went to the range together to shoot. Deputy Cho pushed her to try out for the Special Emergency Response Team she was ultimately selected for the team. She, Deputy Cho, and (former) Deputy Jacob Reed also prepared for SERT competitions together (running, shooting, etc). She and Deputy Cho spent a lot of time together and became very close. De ut said she and De ut Cho Deputy Cho, however, never expressed those feelings to her verbal! or physically. Deput said she felt she and Deputy Cho were Deputy_ said Deputy Cho had his own apartment in Walnut Creek; he lived alone at the location. She would often visit him (a couple of times a week). Deputy _said Deputy Cho told her about the wedding either around the time of Martinez PD Sergeant Paul Starz ck's funeral Se tember 12, 2008) or the wedding day of (then) Deputies #(April 18, 2009). Deputy Cho simply said he was getting married; he asked if she could do him a favor and come to the wedding with him. She agreed to go. Deputy_ said it was ?pretty shocking? to her, and explained that ?it wasn?t a painful thing because she did not understand whi he was iettini married." Deiuti .said - Deputy said she asked Deputy Cho questions about the wedding and the female he was mar in . Deputy Cho said he met -through a "friend from Cal Berkeley." Deputy? said, made assumptions he was getting married to help someone out. I made those assumptions in my mind, because I knew he didn?t love this person. It was for immigration purposes.? Deputy - said there was talk of Deputy Cho's wedding at WCDF. Deputies on CONFIDENTIAL 17 LA. .1: 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL _asked her if she knew Deputy Cho got married and if she was aware there was money involved. Deputy_ said she could not remember if Deputy Cho told her personally that there was money involved or if she heard it from one of Deputy Cho?s close friends (Deputies Habib, Reed, Santos, or Montoya) at WCDF. Deputy said she assumed there was money involved, because ?why would he (Deputy Cho) get married without taking money.? Deputy_ said she attended the wedding at City Hall in San Francisco. She and Deputy Cho drove to the wedding together and left together after the wedding. Deputy Cho did not give her any details about the wedding. -was there with two female friends: one, she believed to be the friend Deputy Cho was hel in . It was the first time she had met she did not know her by name. Deputy? could not remember if she signed the wedding certificate as a "witness." She was the only person at the wedding for Deputy Cho and assumed she probably signed the marriage certificate. Deputy_ said she never met anyone who was close to Deputy Cho. She met his sister, who is married to Deputy Kook Kim. Deputy Cho did not talk about his family very much and was very private. On October 25, 2013, Deputy -was interviewed by USCIS. When asked about her interview with Special A ents when she told them there was possibly $5,000 $10,000 involved, Deputy ?said, ?It was the talk that Cho took $5,000, or $10,000.? Deputy-said she never confronted Deputy Cho about it. She said, was curious but I knew that it wasn?t real. In my mind, I didn?t want to get involved in it because I knew he was doing this for a friend." Deputy said, ?Those are your choices, if you want to do that, it's your life." Deputy Cho never talked to her about finances or any of his real personal stuff. They each maintained a separate household. Deputy Deputy said, assumed his marria was to hel a friend out. CONFIDENTIAL 18 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL so when he married this person, I thought, this is just a bunch of 3.8. I don't know why you're doing this but it is your life and I?m not going to tell you what to do. That's really not in my personality; I?m not someone that is going question unless it was something that I felt was life-threatening. He?s always justified everything he has done. Even toward the end when we got into arguments, he justi?ed every single thing he's ever done." When asked how he justified the wedding, Deputy said, ?He was so nonchalant about it. He just said I?m getting married, I'm helping out a friend." She asked Deputy Cho if he was certain he wanted to do this (the wedding). He said, "Yeah I do." Deputy-said she and Deputy Cho drove to the wedding together and left together after the wedding. When asked about her statement to Special Agents, when she told them she and Deputy Cho went to a dinner with -and her friends, Deputy initially said she could not remember if they went to dinner together. She then, however, remembered they had gone to a ?Dim Sum" restaurant. Deputy said she never saw any women?s clothing at Deputy Cho?s apartment or any other items that would indicate a female lived there with him. She was fairly certain Deputy Cho lived at the location alone. Deputy? said, looking back at the situation she realized it was illegal for Deputy Cho to enter into the marriage. At the time, however, she felt like it was ?simple that he had justi?ed it in his mind.? She said she did not know if ?there was any money exchanging hands." He never showed any guilt or remorse for doing anything like that. Deputy_ said, ?That?s not something I would do because I would marry somebody because I loved them. Cho never showed any emotion. Everything he did he justified. At the time I didn?t really think about it, that?s why the details are so vague to me because it wasn?t something I put a lot of enerii into. We weren?t together at that point. CONFIDENTIAL 19 LA. a? 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative inquiry CONFIDENTIAL She never considered reporting Deputy Cho. Deputy - said Deputy Cho never told her not to discuss the wedding with anyone. She said, think everybody (their co-workers) knew that he had gotten married.? None of her close friends talked to her concerning the marriage. Deputy said, wasn?t really involved in that sense. I was close to Cho in the sense that as close to Cho as anyone could get. People wouldn't actually look at us and say they?re a couple. He never allowed anyone to get that close to him. Deputy-said she and Deputy Cho continued their relationship after the wedding. The last time she and Deputy Cho went out together was at the wedding." They went to the wedding together but did not leave together. When asked what changed in their relationship, Deputy -said there were two things. The first incident occurred after the funeral." She De ut Cho and another friend went to Che 's Restaurant to have drinks. The second incident occurred during the wedding" (then Deputies- where De uty Cho was ve intoxicated. This was an issue for De ut Deputy said Deputy Cho was intoxicated within an hour of their arrival at the wedding reception; he passed out upstairs in a chair. She left the reception by herself. Their relationship ended shortly thereafter. Deputy?said she first became aware Deputy Cho was being investigated when Special Agents came to-to interview her. The agents told her they had interviewed Deputy Cho, and said ?his story was different than mine." Deputy Cho never contacted her to tell her he was under investigation. She was surprised the agents came to the police department to interview her. CONFIDENTIAL 20 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March ?Il. 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy - said Deputy Cho became involved with Deputy?Shortly after her relationship with Deputy Cho ended. She never told Deputi - about De ut Cho's marria e. De ut said she believed Deputy Deputy Jonathan Scanlan?s statement Deputy Scanlan has been employed with the Of?ce of the Sheriff since 2006. He is currently assigned to the Custody Services Bureau, Detention Division, West County Detention Facility. Deputy Scanlan said he worked with Deputy Cho while assigned to WCDF. Deputy Scanlan described his relationship with Deputy Cho primarily as a professional relationship and did not associate with Deputy Cho outside work. Deputy Scanlan said he did not know anything about Deputy Cho's personal life; he was not aware that Deputy Cho was in a dating relationship with Deputy _and denied any knowledge of Deputy Cho?s marriage or hearing any rumors concerning the marriage. Deputy Scanlan said he had not been contacted by Deputy Cho or any other deputy concerning this investigation. Deputy Kook Kim?s statement Deputy Kim has been employed with the Office of the Sheriff since 2002. He is currently assigned to the Field Operations Bureau, Special Operations Division, Air Support Unit. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho is his brother-in-law. He described his and his wife's relationship with Deputy Cho as ?not very close." His wife usually calls Deputy Cho after his mother-in?Iaw calls to tell her she has not heard from Deputy Cho. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho came by the house ?to visit once in a while.? When asked if he knew what was going on with Deputy Cho, Deputy Kim said he was not aware of anything and had not heard anything about Deputy Cho. He then asked, "Is he on Admin Leave?" Deputy Kim explained that he was not aware Deputy Cho was on Administrative Leave but assumed he was because of the fact that he (Deputy Kim) had CONFIDENTIAL 21 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL been called to Internal Affairs for an interview. Deputy Kim said the last time he had an interview with Internal Affairs, a deputy was on Administrative Leave as well. De ut Kim said he has been married RF He currently lives at in Vacaville. He moved into the location with his wife and children. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho lived at the residence with him and his family for a ?couple of months? but would ?come and go.? Deputy Kim said he did not keep track of Deputy Cho. De ut Kim described the house as a four bedroom house. Deputy Kim said he purchased the house with Deputy Cho in either May or June 2010 He was not able to purchase a home on his own because he was forced to short-sale his previous home. The title of the house, the mortgage and all the utilities at- Vacaville, were in Deputy Cho's name. Deputy Kim said he agreed to pay the mortgage and utilities for the residence. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho was required to list the address as his primary residence for the purpose of complying with the terms of the mortgage agreement. Deputy Cho, however, maintained a separate residence. Deputy Kim said they maintained the fourth bedroom for Deputy Cho until he moved to Pleasant Hill (according to documents from Department of Homeland Security, Deputy Cho moved into his apartment in September 2013). Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho would sometimes spend the night at his house; however, he considered Deputy Cho to be more ?a relative who was visiting rather than someone that lived with him.? Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho came to the house with a female, whom he introduced as his "girl" or ?girlfriend.? Deputy Kim said she had a Japanese name like _(Deputy Kim recognized _from her DMV photo). He only remembered seeing her at the house twice. She came for a visit but he never saw her spend the night. Deputy Kim said-did not live with him and his family. She did not have any clothing, furniture or other personal belongings that she maintained at his house. She received mail, in particular credit card applications, at the house. Deputy Kim never questioned why-s mail was sent to his house, saying he would personally use a friend's address if he needed to obtain credit. Deputy Kim said prior to meeting -. Deputy Cho brought Deputy-to the house for a visit. Deputy never spent the night at the house. Deputy Kim said he was aware that Deputy Cho and Deputy-lived together in Walnut Creek. Deputy Kim said he did not know anything about Deputy Cho?s personal life. He also did not speak to his wife about Deputy Cho because he ?really didn?t care." Deputy Kim CONFIDENTIAL 22 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL said he last saw Deputy Cho with- approximately one year ago when they came to his house. He did not know if Deputy Cho and -ever lived together. Deputy Kim said he was not aware Deputy Cho was dating Deputy? Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho came to his house to tell him he and -were married. Deputy Kim and his wife did not question Deputy Cho about the marriage. Deputy Kim said he did not know anything about-or her resident status. He could not remember when Deputy Cho told him about the marriage, and was not surprised by the news. Deputy Kim said the family told him Deputy Cho disappeared sometime in the early nineties and no one heard from him. He reappeared some time later. Deputy Kim said, try not to get involved; I have plenty of stuff to worry about with my family, my kids, my own life." Deputy Kim said after Deputy Cho and -were married, they never moved into his house with him and his family. He did not know if they were still married. Deputy Kim said he did not know Deputy Cho and - were under investigation by Department of Homeland Security; he was never contacted concerning the matter. Deputy Kim said he was also not aware Deputy Cho was placed on Administrative Leave. Deputy Cho had not contacted him. He did not know if his wife was contacted concerning the investigation, but was certain she would have mentioned it to him. Deputy Kim said he was currently in the process of obtaining a loan to purchase the house from Deputy Cho, as they had initially agreed upon when Deputy Cho first purchased the home in Vacaville. When I confronted Deputy Kim with statements Deputy Cho made to Special Agents that he and -moved into the Vacaville home with him (Deputy Kim) and his family, Deputy Kim said, ?Him, yes; her, not so much." I also told Deputy Kim that Deputy Cho stated he and -would meet at the Vacaville house on week nights for a couple of months after they had moved in. Deputy Kim said, wasn?t there, so I don't know. lnever saw them. ldon?t know what time frame that is. ldon?t remember; I don't think so." Deputy Kim agreed that -did not maintain her residence at his house. Deputy Kim said he was aware that while Deputy Cho, on paper, essentially maintained his residence in Vacaville he had a separate apartment. Deputy Kim said, ?That was our kind of agreement.? Deputy Cho never told him he was getting married or provided any details as to the reason why he got married. He also never mentioned he loved Deputy Kim denied any knowledge of Deputy Cho marrying-for the purpose of helping her gain her permanent resident status in the US. Deputy Kim said it did CONFIDENTIAL 23 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry not surprise him if that were the case because ?he?s done his own thing." Deputy Kim said he also did not know there was money involved in the marriage. He said he was aware it was illegal. When asked if he would have reported it to the Sheriff?s Office had he been aware Deputy Cho was involved in a fraudulent marriage, Deputy Kim said, would have talked to him first and see if it was true. If he said he did that, I don?t know. Do I come to you guys to say he's doing this, maybe not. But if you guys are right here and asked me did I know, I?ll tell you yeah. I did not know about that." Deputy Kim was assigned to WCDF with Deputy Cho; they were on different shifts. Deputy Kim said he never heard anyone talk about Deputy Cho, his relationships, or his marriage. Deputy Kim said it seemed the other deputies all liked Deputy Cho. I showed Deputy Kim photos that Deputy Cho and -submitted to Department of Homeland Security. Deputy Kim did not recognize any of the children in the photos. Deputy Kim said Deputy Cho never celebrated his birthday with him and his family. Deputy Cho did come over for Deputy Kim's children?s birthdays. Deputy Kim said he last spoke to Deputy Cho concerning the house last week. Deputy Cho did not mention anything to him about this investigation. Deputy Gabrielle Arnaudo?s statement Deputy Arnaudo has been with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff since 2007. She is currently assigned to the Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Patrol Field Training phase 2. Deputy Arnaudo and Deputy Cho attended the academy together and were assigned to the West County Detention Facility after their training. They were assigned to the same team (green team) for at least two shifts. She described their relationship as a friendship. She did not socialize with him alone outside work. They had casual conversations about his family and would at times joke about his living situation because he did not have much furniture in his house (he told her he had a lawn chair in his living room and did not have cable TV). She had never been to his apartment. Deputy Arnaudo said she was aware Deputy Cho became romantically involved with CONFIDENTIAL 24 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy - and later Deputy -. She had transferred to the Martinez Detention Facility at that time. She only became aware Deputy Cho and Deputy were dating because Deputy - posted things about their relationship on Facebook. She never saw Deputy Cho with either Deputy - or Deputy - at any gatherings. She saw Deputy Cho around May 2013 at the Sacramento County Fair with an Asian female. Deputy Cho introduced the female but did not preface who she was; Deputy Arnaudo did not remember the female's name. Deputy Cho talked to Deputy Arnaudo about meeting a female but said she lived far away. Deputy Arnaudo said she did not hear any rumors at work about Deputy Cho being married and he never spoke to her about it. She only became aware he was married because she was assigned to Danville PD for training when Deputy Cho was placed on Administrative Leave for ?marrying someone that was not from this country." Deputy Arnaudo said she was aware that Deputy Cho and Deputy_ had a close relationship because she was good friends with Deputy Deputy never mentioned anything to her about Deputy Cho's wedding. Deputy - also never said anything about how her relationship with Deputy Cho ended. Deputy Arnaudo said Deputy Cho was very private, even during the time they attended the police academy together. Deputy Cho has not attempted to contact her since being placed on Administrative Leave. Deputy Michael Santos? statement Deputy Santos has been with the Office of the Sheriff for six years. He is currently assigned to the Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Bay Station. Deputy Santos said he has known Deputy Cho since 2008 when he was assigned to WCDF. He and Deputy Cho were assigned to the same shift (green team) for at least two years, and were assigned to SERT together. He associated with Deputy Cho outside work ?a few times over the course of a couple of years? (they went to Tahoe once or went out as a group after work approximately once a month). Deputy Santos said he heard rumors that Deputy Cho was involved in a relationship with Deputy?and later Deputy_. He heard Deputy Cho was married but could not remember where he heard it; Deputy Cho never talked about his wife, his marriage. or anything about his personal life. Deputy Santos said Deputy Cho was ?a very secretive kind bunch of questions about his personal life." Deputy Santos said he never heard that Deputy Cho ?bragged" about CONFIDENTIAL 25 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL being paid for the marriage and did not hear other deputies talk about it. While he was assigned at WCDF, he heard the marriage was for immigration purposes but could not remember where he had heard it. Deputy Santos did not hear anything about other deputies attending Deputy Cho?s wedding. Deputy Santos said he has never visited Deputy Cho?s apartment and had never seen or met Deputy Cho's wife. Deputy Ryan Montoya?s statement Deputy Montoya has been with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff for seven years. He is currently assigned to the Custody Services Bureau, Detention Division, Martinez Detention Facility. Deputy Montoya said he attended the basic police academy with Deputy Cho. They were assigned to WCDF after their initial training in detention. Deputy Montoya said he and Deputy Cho became friends once they were assigned at they attended functions together. He had never been to Deputy Cho's house; Deputy Cho had been to his house on one occasion. Deputy Montoya heard Deputy Cho was in a dating relationship with Deputy -, but was not aware they lived together. He was not aware Deputy Cho was involved in a dating relationship with Deputy- When asked how much he knew about Deputy Cho?s personal life, Deputy Montoya said, ?Not much, to me he never talked about personal stuff.? Deputy Montoya said he was not aware Deputy Cho was married and did not hear any rumors about it at work. Deputy Montoya said he last spoke to Deputy Cho approximately a month ago but it was a brief conversation about where he (Deputy Montoya) was assigned when he transferred from patrol back to detention. Deputy Cho did not say anything to him that he was under investigation. In closing Deputy Montoya said, consider myself a friend of Cho and we talk at work about work stuff. To be honest, I never talked personal life with him. I've been to functions, but never been to functions at his house." Deputy Cho always attended the functions by himself. CONFIDENTIAL 26 LA. 1; 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Statement of Deputy Qais Habib Deputy Habib has been with the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff for six years. He is currently assigned to the Field Operations Bureau, Patrol Division, Muir Station. Deputy Habib said he has known Deputy Cho since 2008 when they were assigned to West County Detention Facility (WCDF). He considered Deputy Cho to be a ?good friend." He associated with him at work as well as off-duty. He had been to Deputy Cho's apartment in Walnut Creek once, when he spent the night after working a double shift (regular shift followed by a training day) sometime in 2009 or 2010. Deputy Habib said Deputy Cho was not dating Deputy-at that time. Deputy Habib said it appeared Deputy Cho lived at the apartment by himself; there was no indication anyone else lived there. He had also been to a social gathering at Deputy Cho and Deputy-s condominium. Deputy Habib said he knew about Deputy Cho and-s relationship and had heard rumors about De ut Cho dating Deputy Deputy Cho never spoke to him about Deputy? Deputy Habib said he had heard from other deputies that Deputy Cho was married and saw him wear a wedding band when he was first assigned to WCDF with him. However, he never spoke to him about his marriage or his wife. Deputy Habib said Deputy Cho was a very private person and never spoke to him about his personal life. Deputy Habib said he never heard any rumors that Deputy Cho's marriage was for immigration purposes and that there was any money involved. He was also not aware Deputy Cho bought a house in Vacaville. Deputy Habib said he last saw Deputy Cho at the county hospital approximately six months ago. Statement of Deputy Steve Cho At the start of the interview Ms. Hickman noted for the record that Deputy Cho had requested he be advised of his Miranda rights prior to being interviewed by Internal Affairs. She also confirmed Deputy Cho would provide a compelled statement to Internal Affairs for the Administrative Inquiry without being advised of his Miranda rights. Deputy Cho has been employed by the Of?ce of the Sheriff for six years. He was CONFIDENTIAL 27 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL assigned to the Detention Division, WCDF, for five years prior to being transferred to the Patrol Division. His current assignment is with the Town of Danville. De uty Cho said he first met?in 2008 through a mutual friend named a He knew _from Santa Monica where he went to school with her. He was not able to provide an other information about _because he lost contact with her. He last saw approximately five months after he met- He believed- last name was possibly? Deputy Cho said he first met- in Southern California. They either ran into each other or she possibly called him after they moved to Northern California. - lived somewhere on the border of Oakland and Berkeley. Deputy Cho said - was studying to be a paralegal when they first met. She is employed translating technical documents for an unknown company. He and became involved in a dating relationship shortly after they met. They appeared to have a lot in common, and shared a similar personality. He thought-told him she was in the US on a work visa. Deputy Cho said he and _saw each other often and went on hikes and out to dinner. He lived at?in Walnut Creek when he and _first started dating. Deputy Cho said-visited him but never moved her furniture or other items into his apartment. She kept some clothes at the apartment but mostly carried clothes back and forth. Deputy Cho said he assumed she maintained her own apartment (she rented a room at a residence) on Colby Street in Oakland. Deputy Cho said his relationship with- progressed into a romantic relationship until they eventually married. On October 7, 2008, De ut Cho and-were married at City Hall in San Francisco. Deputy was in attendance (Deputy told she felt she and Deputy Cho were in involved in an Deputy Cho described Deputy?as a ?co-worker? and a ?work-out partner.? For a while, they went to the range together a lot. She attended his wedding. When asked if he would describe their relationship as a ?dating relationship,? Deputy Cho said, ?De?nitely not.? De ut _had been to his a artment ?once or twice" but did not spend the night, CONFIDENTIAL 28 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL On December 28, 2008, Deputy Cho submitted a Health Bene?ts Plan Enrollment Form to County Emplo ee Bene?ts requesting to add-to his health care plan (not his dental lan). *3 coverage became effective April 1, 2009. Deputy Cho never listed his wife, as his designated beneficiary. On February 16, 2009, Deputy Cho and -submitted the following immigration documents to Department of Homeland Security, listing their residence as Walnut Creek: 0 [-130 - Petition for Alien Relative (Request to the government for an immigrant visa for a relative). . l-485 - Application to register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (The application is filed to request a green card once the H30 is approved, often times ?led concurrently with HBO). . [-864 Affidavit of support (Ah?idavit submitted with l?485 showing that a US resident/citizen will be financially responsible for the intending immigrant), and a job verification letter from the Office of the Sheriff For clarification, I restated that- never ?lived with him? at the apartment (as he had previously stated- visited him). Deputy Cho said, ?No, she did.? He then said, ?She stayed over a couple of times.? When I asked if she lived there and if it was her residence, Deputy Cho said, ?After we got married it was her residence.? Ms. Hickman asked Deputy Cho to clarify what it meant to him, that it was his wife?s residence. Deputy Cho said, ?Basically wherever I live, she lives." Ms. Hickman gave Deputy Cho the analogy that, ?your residence is where you lay your head every night and wake up every morning; you have your meals and you store all of our belongings." She then asked him to explain what he meant when he said it was Es residence. Deputy Cho said, ?Basically, wherever you say your residence is, where you will get your mail; something that is stable. I never really had a stable place. For a while I was considering LA. to be my residence. I?ve moved so many times in the past 20 years. I don't really have a place I define as where I lay my head. If that were the case then Franklin Canyon golf course would be my residence because I slept there so many times on my way home from work CONFIDENTIAL 29 LA. .4 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL because I was just so tired. It?s basically where the most stable residence is for me.? Deputy Cho said he told Deputy_ about the wedding. He did not recall how he asked her or what the conversation was. Deputy Cho said, don?t know if I told her I was getting married and she asked me if she could come; I?m not sure.? He was not certain if he ever discussed with De ?that he was involved with someone else. When asked what Deputy ?5 reaction was to the news of the wedding, given the fact that she told us they would see each other frequently, come to his apartment often, take showers at his apartment after they went to the range, Deputy Cho said, know she was there a cou le of times, but not more than two or three times. We were just friends? When asked if it surprised him to hear Deputy felt they were involved in a ?relationship?, Deputy Cho said, ?At different times we?ve, kind of, had feelings toward each other but nothing ever came of that.? This occurred at the time he supposedly was dating When asked if Deputy-attended the wedding for the purpose of being a witness, Deputy Cho said, don?t remember if we needed to have a witness. ljust thought she would want to come because we were hanging out a lot at the time.? No one else was invited to the wedding. When asked if he told Deputy-he was getting married to help someone for an reason, Deputy Cho said, may have said something to her (Deputy in joking that we were in a fake marriage.? Deputy Cho explained he said that because he ?did not want people to know things about? him. He did not consider Deputy -s feelings; it was just something he joked about. He denied he received money for marrying and denied he told Deputy the marriage was for immigration purposes. Deputy Cho then said, ?We joked about it saying I?m just getting married because she needs a green card. That?s just what we joked about.? Deputy Cho said he loved- When asked why he would joke about his ?primary relationship? to someone he had expressed feelings for, Deputy Cho said, ?It?s just something to talk about at work; I mean I?m not going to talk about my true feelings with the people at work.? De uty Cho said on the day of the wedding, he picked up Deputy then i and drove to City Hall (in San Francisco). After the wedding they (Deputies Cho, and two of her friends) went to lunch. After their gathering he dropped off- first, then Deputy_ He could not remember what he did after that. Deputy Cho said he told -that Deiuty - would come to the wedding. He never talked to - about Deputy because ?there was nothing 30 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL to talk about." Deputy Cho denied he left with Deputy after their gathering. Deputy Cho said he could not remember what he did the night of his wedding. When confronted with the fact that it was hard to believe he could not remember what he did the night of his wedding, Deputy Cho said, ?Well, I don?t know what to tell you.? When I again asked if he and-lived together after they were married, Deputy Cho said, ?Yes.? Ms. Hickman asked Deputy Cho to explain what he meant by ?living together.? Deputy Cho said, ?She lives with me, so she can come and go at my place whenever she feels like it.? It was also the address she provided to Immigrations as her primary residence. Deputy Cho said he assumed she maintained the room she rented in Oakland. He and -did not see each other every day because they worked opposite schedules. He ?assumed she used her other residence more often." Deputy Cho then said, ?Her residence was with me.? In reference to the immigration documents Deputy Cho said, ?She pretty much filed everything so I?m not exactly sure when she did everything.? Deputy Cho admitted he signed the immigration documents. When asked why he attended the wedding of (then) Deputiesq ?with Deputy? rather than his wife, Deputy Cho said, just wanted to go. I wasn?t going to bring someone to a work function that I don?t want co-workers to know.? He said he did not want them to know about- because he would ?rather keep his personal life private and keep it separate from work." Deputy Cho said he had ?way too much to drink" at the'wedding and could not remember what happened between him and Deputy They arrived at the weddin . Deputy Cho said he and Deputy but she left. When asked whether his wife approved of him Deputy Cho said, don?t think I told my wife that was going. I?ve never been a typical person to do things like the way everybody else does it; I kinda just do my own thing.? I asked if he remembered telling the INS Agents he and Deputy -had a - asked Deputy Cho why he would refer to it as such if it was merely a ?friendship?" I told him by using those words it seemed to indicate the relationship was more than a ?friendship." Deputy Cho said, ?What else would you call it? If I had a male fnend CONFIDENTIAL. 31 LA. .7 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL On May 14, 2009, Deputy Cho and - were interviewed They claimed to reside at_ Walnut Creek. was granted ?conditional residence? status at the conclusion of the interview. Deputy Cho said he and-are still married but he ?thinks she is filing for a divorce." When asked how long he and-were ?happily married?, Deputy Cho said, think things were just kind of a mess back then. I was kind of in a different relationship with someone else while I was still married, but at the same time I wasn?t seeing her 'a lot at different points. I still cared about her.? When asked when he and stOpped ?living together' (based on his version that she stopped ?coming and going as she pleased?), Deputy Cho said they stopped ?living together? in 2012. When asked if he agreed that he and -were ?living together? from the time they were married (October 7, 2008) till 2012, based on his interpretation, De ut Cho a reed. I then asked him about Deputy? Deputy Cho said, They got to know each other when she was working in the jail. Deputy Cho said, think we went to a movie with a bunch of people from work but hat went so it was 'ust me and her. (According to Deputy they became involved in a relationship in October 2009. Deputy Cho told us that he and - ?lived together? immediately after their wedding on October 7, 2003 till 2012). De ut Cho said he saw Dem? ?pretty often? because he ?was not seeing When." was home ?once every few months." Deputy Cho said Deputy was moving out of her apartment and wanted to move in with him; he thought ?it would be a great way to split the rent.? When asked what he told -about his living arrangement, Deputy Cho said he told her he was moving in with someone from work. On April 1, 2010, Deputies Cho and - entered into a one year lease agreement at? Walnut Creek. Deputy Cho moved out of his apartment at?when he moved in with Deputy-at* Walnut Creek. When asked if- visited him at his and Deputy ?s new apartment, Deputy Cho said, ?She came over whenever she wanted or needed. She came over several times for dinner," while he was living with Deput -. Deputy Cho agreed that he and Deputy- were ?living asked if he considered the apartment with Deputy to be his home, Deputy Cho 32 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL said, ?No, because i knew that was just a temporary place for us (him and Deputy When confronted with the fact that he had told us he and - lived together from the time they were married till 2012, Deputy Cho said he told -she could ?come and go? but knew she would not. Deput Cho said he gave -a key to the apartment. He did not know if Deputy was in agreement with the arrangement or knew he gave - a key to their (his and Deputy a artment. Deputy Cho said he believed - came over ?once or twice." De ut was not at home when- came to the apartment. Deputy Cho said did not maintain her residence at the location, because at the time he was buying a house in Vacaville for his brother-in-law (Deputy Kook Kim). He therefore had change ?her residence? to Vacaville. When asked if they changed .5 residence in furtherance of the immigration process, Deputy Cho said, ?Well, she needed to put a place down' it would show where our residence would be.? Deputy Cho was not certain it used the? as her residence with INS. When asked about the petitions that were submitted to INS, Deputy Cho said, pretty much let her fill that out; I?m not big on doing paperwork." When asked if he was aware that he signed the immigration documents under the penalty of perjury, Deputy Cho said, ?Correct, I went over them briefly, they looked to be correct.? Deputy Cho indicated the documents were prepared by an immigration attorney had hired. When asked if the attorney was aware it the relationship and residences they were maintaining were merely for paperwork purposes, Deputy Cho said, ?We explained to her our living situation and she filled out everything." On May 13, 2010, Deputy Cho purchased the residence at ?mew/la; a little over a month after signing a one year lease with Deputy at Walnut Creek. - maintained the Walnut Creek address with immigration until Deputy Cho purchased the Vacaville residence. Deputy Cho and - changed their place of residence with immigration to reflect - Vacaville. -also changed her driver license to reflect the same address. Deputy Cho and - never listed Walnut Creek address as their place of residence in ?s immigration documents. When asked about the purchase of the Vacaville residence, Deputy Cho said, "My brother-in-law's (Deputy Kook Kim) house was foreclosed so he needed a place. I purchased it and let him stay there knowing that eventually he would buy the 33 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL house from me and take it over.? Deputy Cho confirmed that the title of the house and the utilities were in his name. Deputy Cho said he considered the Vacaville home to be his new residence; it was also the address they submitted to INS as -s residence. I reminded Deputy Cho he not only told INS agents he and - lived at the Vacaville residence, he also listed it as their residence on the immi ration documents, when, in fact, he was living with Deputy- at - Walnut Creek at the time. When asked why he made the statements to INS agents and listed the Vacaville address on immigration paperwork, Deputy Cho said, ?Because that Vacaville) became my new address." Deputy Cho agreed that he was required to list the location as his primary residence to comply with the terms of the mortgage agreement. He then said it was also because he was ?living there for a little bit? but was still renting the property at where he ?stayed most of the time.? When confronted with the fact that-s address had to match his address for the purposes of the immigration proceedings, Deputy Cho said, ?No, because that's where we lived.? Deputy Cho insisted it was his ?residence.? When we told Deputy Cho there appeared to be a truthfulness issue based on his statements, Deputy Cho said, ?Yes, that is my residence.? I again emphasized that it appeared "on paper" (for purposes of the mortgage agreement with the bank), he claimed the Vacaville residence as his primary residence. When I asked Deputy Cho to explain why he maintained an apartment with his girlfriend in Walnut Creek, yet was still claiming to live in Vacaville, Deputy Cho said, spent most of my time in Walnut Creek, but that?s my residence in Vacaville; that?s where I live.? We described that our understanding of the actual living situation was that Deputy Kim, his wife and children lived at the house in Vacaville. He (Deputy Cho) was living with his girlfriend (Deputy -) in Walnut Creek. while his wife -was living in Oakland. We clarified that it appeared he merely claimed the Vacaville address as his primary residence for the purposes of meeting the loan requirements with the mortgage company and for the purposes of-s immigration. We told Deputy Cho that his brother-in-law (Deputy Kim) con?rmed he and- never lived at the Vacaville residence. We emphasized that the purpose of the interview was to try to understand his perspective of the situation. Deputy Cho said, ?So, if we want to list where I spent most of my time, or where I slept most of the time, I would probably list my car as my residence.? I explained that I personally CONFIDENTIAL 34 LA. 1; 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL considered my home to be the place where all my belongings are, the place where my children are, where my dog is, where make my meals, where I rest my head every night; that is what I consider to be my home. When I confronted Deputy Cho with the fact that all his property was at the Walnut Creek residence where he lived with Deputy Deputy Cho said, spend most of my time there, yes.? We told Deputy Cho that it appeared he was trying to justify his living situation because -s immigration status was a factor. Deputy Cho said, ?That?s definitely a factor.? When presented with the fact that it appeared he may have a different interpretation of what he considered to be his "residence" than about 90% of people, Deputy Cho said, ?Probably 99%. The way you are describing everything, then I?ve been pretty much homeless my entire life then, because I don?t feel I have ever had a place of residence that I feel like this is where I lay my head all the time.? When asked how many times he may have stayed at the Vacaville residence over the past four years, Deputy Cho said, ?Several dozen times." He insisted it was his residence. Deputy Cho said he slept in the den. When asked if - also occupied the den with him, Deputy Cho said, never slept with her there. She is free to come and go. I went there a few times with her but we never stayed there." We again reiterated that Deputy Kim had already informed us he (Deputy Cho) would visit but considered him to be more of a family member that visited on occasion and would sometimes spend the night, but that it was not his residence. CONFIDENTIAL 35 LA. 11? 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL When asked if Deputy knew a out his marriage, Deputy Cho said, probably told her the same thing I told - that was just in a fake marriage. That wa she wouldn?t ask too many questions about it.? Deputy Cho again claimed to love i asked wh he would tell the woman he was living with,? he was in a fake marriage, if it was not the truth, Deputy Cho said, Deputy Cho claimed he had "some feelings" for Deputy and cared about her. When confronted with the fact that moving in with a person was more of a commitment than being involved in a regular dating relationship, Deputy Cho said, mean, I thought it would be convenient because that way I could save on rent." Ms. Hickman asked Deputy Cho if he considered himself in some respects to be an ?opportunist,? Deputy Cho said, ?Sure.? When Ms. Hickman asked if he was motivated by perspective financial gain or by an emotional commitment in the move with Deputy -, Deputy Cho said, ?Both." He explained, ?She wanted to move in together; I didn?t really want to, but I thou ht I could maybe save on rent. I mean, it was just kind of an opportunity* We summarized that he was telling both women (Deputies _and- that he was involved in a fake marriage and that they should not worry about it. When asked if his marriage to -was fake and just for immigration purposes, Deputy Cho said, When confronted with the fact that it de?nitely appeared the marriage was for immigration purposes Deputy Cho said, ?Well, I mean, my life just looks like a mess; that?s just the way it is.? (J lA 36 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL confronted Deputy Cho with the fact that -s immigration rocess steadily progressed while he was in a ?close friendship? with Deputy h, became involved in a relationship with Deputy- and ultimately moved in with her. Deputy Cho said, ?You have to understand that I?m not sure why she is saying those things. And_, she has made some wild accusations about me. Although I may have dated - she acts very much like someone who has been jilted by me for some reason. I don't know why." I again reiterated that he continued to assist- with the immigration process despite being involved in relationships with other women, whom he told he was involved in a fake marriage for immigrations purposes, and was helping out a friend. When asked what he would think of the situation given those facts. Deputy Cho said, never really cared what people believed about me; they can believe whatever they want." I told Deputy Cho it (entering into a fraudulent marriage for immigration purposes) was unlawful if it was determined the marriage was fraudulent. Deputy Cho said, ?It?s not, because we got married because we cared about each other.? clarified that the extenuating circumstances surrounding his marriage could prove the marriage was fraudulent. In response Deputy Cho said, mean people can make personal decisions that probably aren?t the best. I know I definitely haven?t made very good personal decisions and said a lot of stupid things, but that doesn?t mean I was in a fraudulent marriage.? On May 9, 2011, Deputy Cho and- ?led 1-751 Petition to remove the Conditions on Residence (Filed approximately 18 months after immigrant is approved for Conditional Residence. This document, if approved, lifts the Conditional Residenc and the immigrant is now considered a Lawful Permanent Resident), listingh Vacaville as their residence. On November 8, 2011, Deputy Cho and - submitted a declaration in support of their l-751 petition titled ?Joint Declaration of ?and Steve Cho in Support of l-751 Waiver to Remove Conditions on Residence.? Deputy Cho did not recall submitting the documents to INS to "remove the conditions of residency." I showed Deputy Cho a declaration he and submitted with the immigration documents marked ?Joint Declaration of and Steve Cho in support of l-751 Waiver to Remove Conditions on Residence." Deputy Cho and- signed the document ?under the penalty of perjury.? Deputy Cho confirmed it was his signature on the declaration. The declaration described how he and met, their family members. and their irregular shifts. It stated they lived on CONFIDENTIAL 37 LA. 1r 2014?037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL after their marriage. It indicated the purchase of the residence in Vacaville where he and -claimed to live. When asked why he listed the Vacaville address on the document when in fact he never lived there, Deputy Cho said, ?That?s our residence.? I also showed Deputy Cho some pictures he and- submitted with the declaration to INS (in support of the l-751 Petition). One of the pictures depicted his birthday celebration with and some friends dated March 2010. Deputy Cho confirmed it was during the time he was living with Deputy Deputy Cho denied he and -staged the photos for the immigration process as was alleged, and claimed the events were actual events. confronted Deputy Cho with the fact that the dates of the events listed with the photos appeared suspicious based on the fact that some of the events (birthday celebration and wedding anniversary) took place during the same time periods he was living with and involved in a relationship with Deputy It also appeared suspicious that they only listed addresses in their petitions where they both claimed to live; -s Oakland address was never listed in the petitions filed with immigration. On November 30, 2011, l-751 petition was approved by and - became a ?Lawful Permanent Resident" of the US. had no prior knowledge of the report made by Deputy- I told De uty Cho that it appeared the facts he ?joked about? (that he told Deputies iand- he was in a fake marriage because-needed a green card) were actually true and the marriage was for immigration purposes. There was also the allegation that there was money involved. Deputy Cho again denied there was money involved as both Deputies?and - had reported. On October 3, 2012 Deputy Cho submitted a Health Benefit Plan Enrollment Form to remove .from his County Employer provided health plan. On October 21, 2013, Deputy Cho was interviewed by USCIS. Deputy Cho was given the opportunity to provide a sworn statement at the completion of his interview; he declined. (It should be noted that-told investigators she ?led for divorce in October 2013, which coincides with the time Deputy Cho was made aware of the Federal investigation). When I asked Deputy Cho when he was ?rst contacted by INS agents, he said, think I got a call from someone who left a message that was kind of garbled. Then later he came to my work and I talked to him at work.? Deputy Cho said he was not under the impression he was a subject of an investigation. Deputy Cho said, ?He was just COthlDEthl/AL 38 rF 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL asking me about her application.? Deputy Cho said he was not Mirandized prior to the interview. Deputy Cho said he surmised the agents were investigating their (his and application. When asked if he notified a supervisor about the interview with INS. Deputy Cho said, assumed they cleared it with my supervisor that he was talking to me." When asked how many times he was contact by INS agents prior to the interview (INS agents reported they had attempted to contact Deputy Cho multiple times but he did not return their calls), Deputy Cho said, ?Not at all. I don?t know if he contacted me but I may have gotten a message, which I didn?t know if it was legitimate or not. We get a lot of prank calls from people saying they are from the IRS or whatever it is.? When asked who he meant by Deputy Cho said, ?In Danville I respond to several calls all the time saying that someone from either INS or the IRS or whatever agency and you need to call this number, whatever it is.? When asked to clarify if he was trying to say the agents called him at Danville PD and left messages for him at Danville PD, Deputy Cho said the agents called his cell phone. I asked to explain his prior statement when he said, ?We receive prank calls like that." Deputy Cho said, ?Like the citizens; we respond to those all the time.? I explained to Deputy Cho that I was referring to speci?c messages left on his cell phone for him to contact the Special Agent. Deputy Cho said, didn?t know who this person was and did not return his calls." We again asked why he did not report anything to his supervisor, and Deputy Cho said the agents told him they had cleared it with his supervisor and he got the impression the supervisor was aware. When asked why he did not report it once he gathered he was a subject of a Federal Investigation, Deputy Cho said he was ?detailed" to the station for the interview and thought his supervisor was aware because the agents told him they cleared it with his supervisor to talk to him for as long as they needed. During the interview with the INS agents, Deputy Cho said he and- lived together in Vacaville and maintained an apartment in Walnut Creek where he kept all his belongings. Deputy Cho confirmed the apartment he was referring to was the apartment where he lived with Deputy He also told the agents he was going to add - to the lease agreement at the apartment in Walnut Creek. When asked if Deputy -agreed to add -to their lease, Deputy Cho said, ?No was going to add her?to the lease I had at-? When I confronted De ut Cho with the fact that he already had moved out of his apartment at* at the time, and was no longer living there, Deputy Cho said, thought that?s what he was referring to.? 39 LA. .4 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL asked Deputy Cho if he had talked to anyone he worked with about the fact that it was just a "fake marriage," Deputy Cho said, can?t remember any, but I?m sure Ijoked about it with some people.? When asked if he wore his wedding ring at work, Deputy Cho cited the fact that he did not particularly like jewelry and did not want people to know he was married, as reasons he did not wear his wedding band. Deputy Cho said wore a wedding ring. Deputy Cho confirmed that he and - lived at his apartment in Walnut Creek rior to the wedding. He also confirmed it was the same apartment where Deputy claimed to visit quite frequently. Deputy Cho said, wouldn?t say she came over to my apartment frequently, but we spent a lot of time going to the range together.? I asked Deputy Cho about his divorce as he had mentioned earlier in this interview. Deputy Cho said -served him with papers shortly after his interview with INS agents in October 2013. asked Deputy Cho if he thought it appeared suspicious that she filed for divorce shortly after they were interviewed by INS agents considering her immigration process was completed and she was granted her permanent residency. Deputy Cho said: don?t know. I can?t say what other people think. She just wants a divorce.? I again confronted Deputy Cho with that the fact that he told people (co-workers) it was a ?fake marriage and was for immigration only? and that based on the totality of circumstances the situation appeared suspicious. When I asked if he agreed with my statement, Deputy Cho said, don't agree. I mean, I agree that it doesn?t look good, but that's not the case. I don?t know what to say beyond that." (Ms. Hickman requested a break from the interview to speak to Deputy Cho) When we resumed the interview we informed Ms. Hickman we did not have any additional questions for Deputy Cho. We offered Ms. Hickman the opportunity to ask Deputy Cho clarifying questions or to address any additional concerns. Ms. Hickman asked Deputy Cho if he and -consummated their marriage. Deputy Cho said, ?Yes." When she asked if it was result of how much he cared for her and the intimacy of the relationship, Deputy Cho said, "Yes.? Ms. Hickman then asked Deputy Cho if, based on his definition of marriage, he believed he was involved in a fraudulent marriage with - Deputy Cho said, ?We both had similar personalities and she seemed like a very good person. I wanted her to stay in the county, definitely. I knew that her visa was going to expire and I asked her to marry me and we got married. It was a legitimate, truthful marriage." CONFIDENTIAL 4o LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL asked Deputy Cho if he had ani closing remarks. Deputy Cho said, am just kind of disappointed that -and would kind to me a lot of their statements, I don't know what they are fully. It sounds like they made a lot of completely untrue statements. I?m disappointed.? Conclusions At issue are the following: 1 . Did Deputy Cho enter into a marriage with a foreign national for the purpose of assisting her in obtaining her permanent residency status, in violation of Federal law and Policies and Procedures section 1.05.57? Unbecoming Conduct ?UnIawfuI Conduct Did Deputy Cho provide untruthful statements during his interview with Internal Affairs, in violation of Policies and Procedures section 1.05. 43 - Of?ce of the Sheriff PrOpriety and Decorum - Truthfulness Was Deputy Cho's conduct and actions in violation of Policies and Procedures section 1.05.43 - Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum Off- Duty Demeanor Did Deputy Cho fail to make the required notification to his Division Commander when he learned he was a subject of a Federal criminal investigation, in violation of Policies and Procedures section 1.05.60 - Employee Personal Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or Criminal Investigation As to the first issue, Policies and Procedures section 1.05.57 Unbecoming Conduct, states in part: I. POLICY. A. The public has placed its trust in the Office of the Sheriff to administer an honest effective law enforcement agency. The Office of the Sheriff embraces the public trust and recognizes that effective law enforcement would be severely hampered if such trust were lost. The Office of the CONFIDENTIAL 41 LA. 4 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Sheriff also recognizes that this public trust can only be retained through the efforts of all employees. Therefore, employees shall conduct themselves in a manner both on duty and off-duty that will not discredit or reflect poorly on the Office of the Sheriff. ll. GENERAL. A. UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT. 1. By accepting employment with the Office of the Sheriff, safety and general employees alike are accepting a higher standard of conduct than is found in other government service. We must be aware that our actions on and off duty are subject to scrutiny and reflect on the entire Office of the Sheriff. An employee's behavior may be considered unbecoming conduct if it would normally be viewed with disfavor by the community we serve. 2. The following is a list of unacceptable conduct. Each item may be sufficient grounds for utilization of the Corrective Counseling System or the Personnel Management Regulations. The list is not all inclusive and other unspecified conduct may also result in action by the Office of the Sheriff a. Unlawful Conduct: Employees will strictly observe all provisions of the law in both their public and private affairs and will at all times conduct themselves in accordance with all legal mandates. Also as to the first issue, 18 US. CODE 1001 - STATEMENTS OR GENERALLY, states in part: Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully? (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or 42 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative inquiry CONFIDENTIAL (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, ?ctitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 1098, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. Also as to the ?rst issue, 18 U. S. CODE 1546 - FRAUD AND MISUSE OF VISAS, PERMITS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, states in part: Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section we of title United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fa ct? Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section gm of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title?, 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug traf?cking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. 28 US. CODE 1746 - UNSWORN DECLARATIONS UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of of?ce, or an oath required to be taken before a speci?ed official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, CON I DENT IAL 43 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certi?cate, veri?cation, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature) Also as to the first issue, 8 US. CODE 1325 - IMPROPER ENTRY BY ALIEN, states in part: (0) Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. The details surrounding Deputy Steve Cho and?s marriage was brought into question after Department of Homeland Securit lnvesti ations (HSI) began to investi ate 'a re ort the received ion December 31, 2010. Tip-line to report Deputy Cho and -were an a ed in a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of obtaining immigration bwweged Deputy Cho received money for entering into the marriage. was not interviewed by HSI until September 6, 2013. Deputy Cho and-submitted a joint declaration claiming they fell in love after dating for a few months and decided to get married. They married October 7, 2008, and began submittin immigration documents (petitions and supporting affidavits) in furtherance of 's immigration status in February 2009. USCIS had no knowled of on December 31, 2010; they ultimately granted permanent residency status on November 30, 2011. The initial report was referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for further investigation after was interviewed. Based on a review of the content of the immigration documents, statements provided by Deputy Cho (and -) during the immi ration process and the Federal investigation, and interviews conducted with Deputiesh and-, ICE investigators believed 44 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy Cho entered into a fraudulent marriage with - for the purpose of illegally obtaining immigration benefits. Deputy Cho attempted to refute the allegations and validate the information he provided in the immigration documents and af?davits (he signed under penalty perjury), regarding the legitimacy of his marriage to -, their relationship, and their living situation during the immigration process. Deputy Cho and -provided inconsistent statements during their interviews with ICE investigators. -told investigators she filed for divorce in October 2013, shortly after Deputy Cho was informed of the ICE investigation. Based on the totality of the circumstances, ICE investigators believed Deputy Cho entered into a fraudulent marriage, provided false information in the immigration documents he submitted (signed under penalty of perjury), and was untruthful during the Federal investigation. They determined there was sufficient cause to believe Deputy Cho was in violation of 18 U.S. CODE 1001 (Statements or Entries Generally), 18 U.S. CODE 1546 (Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and other Documents), and 8 U.S. CODE 1325(c) (Improper Entry by Alien- Marriage Fraud). The case was presented to the US Attorney?s Office for review. The US Attorney's Of?ce declined to file criminal charges against Deputy Cho (the Federal investigation against-remains open). During the Internal Affair?s interview Deputy Cho denied the allegations that he entered into the marriage for immigration purposes and denied receiving money for marrying He insisted his marriage to-was a ?legitimate, truthful marriage." The Internal Affairs investigation revealed the followin facts to support the allegations De uty Cho entered into a fraudulent marriage with for the sole purpose to assist iin obtaining a permanent residency status in the US: a Deputy Cho was involved in a relationship with Deputy from October 2009 April 18, 2010. The relationship with Deputy was concurrent with the time he claimed to have dated and ultimately married During her interview with ICE investigators, Deputy-said Deputy Cho told her he was marrying a ?foreigner" to ?help out a friend.? She also told ICE investigators she was ?pretty sure? Deputy Cho received $5,000 or $10,000 for marrying - Deputy Cho asked Deputy -to attend his wedding. Deputy ?stated she and Deputy Cho went to the wedding together and left toge er a er the wedding. Deputy Cho said he may have 45 LA. a 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL ?joked? with Deputy-(and later with Depuw that he was in a ?fake marriage" or that he was getting married because needed a ?green card." . Deputy Cho submitted immigration documents (signed under penalty of perjury) that indicated he and-resided together at Walnut Creek after they were married until Deputy Cho purchased a house in Vacaville. Deputy Cho claimed he and - ?lived together? and explained that ?can come and go whenever she feels like it.? -maintained the room she rented in Oakland. Deputy?stated she spent a lot of time with Deputy Cho and frequently visited his apartment; there was no indication anyone else lived at the apartment. On April 18, 2009, Deputies Cho and -attended the-wedding" together and had planned to share a hotel room together for the night. Deiuti Cho said he did not tell- he was ?oinc.) to the wedding with Deputy Deputy Cho said he and Deputy had a ?just after the wedding. . From October 2009 until November 17, 2010, Deputy Cho was involved in a romantic relationship with Deputy - This relationship was also during the time Deputy Cho was married to -and claimed to be residin with her. Deputies Cho and - moved in together at- Walnut Creek after signing a one year lease agreement. During his Internal Afiair?s interview, Deputy Cho claimed -? ived with? (?She came over whenever she wanted or needed") him and Deputy - at Walnut Creek. The address was never listed in immigration documents as her place of residence. . On May 13, 2010, Deputy Cho purchased the residence at? Vacaville. Deputy Cho claimed he and - moved into the residence with Deputy Kim his brother-in-law) and Deputy Kim's wife and children. Deputy Cho and listed the Vacaville address as their place of residence in the immigration documents they submitted to INS. Deputy Kim was required to list the address as his primary residence to comply with the term of the mortgage agreement. Deputy Kim admitted Deputy Cho and -never lived at the residence. . Deputy Cho insisted he and - resided together at each of the residences he listed in the immigration documents. Deputy Cho attempted CliOl?J I DE 1A L- 46 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL to dispute the fact he and -never lived together claiming his understanding of the term ?residence" was different than of the population. Deputy Cho used the following statements to clarify his understanding of the term ?residence:" spent most of my time in Walnut Creek (the residence he occupied with Deputy -), but that?s my residence in Vacaville; that?s where I live.? (Deputy Cho also said, ?If we want to list where I spent most of my time or where I slept most of the time, I would probably list my car as my residence?) - ?Basically, wherever I live, she lives.? - ?Wherever you say your residence is; where you get your mail. Something that is stable.? Viewed objectively, ICE investigators believed Deputy Cho and -entered into the marriage for the sole ur ose of fraudulently obtaining immigration benefits (permanent residency status) for Deputy Cho submitted Immigration documents containing false information and signed the documents under penalty of perjury. ICE investigators were unable to establish if Deputy Cho received money for marrying - They believed Deputy Cho was untruthful during the Federal investigation, in an attempt to refute the allegations of his fraudulent marriage. Regardless of the reasons the US Attorney?s Office ultimately declined to file criminal charges, the investigation revealed Deputy Cho (and - were in violation of Federal criminal immigration statutes. The administrative investigation provided sufficient facts to conclude Deputy Cho and never lived at the same residence together at any time after their wedding and the subsequent immigration process. Black?s Law Dictionary defines ?Residence? as ?Living or dwelling in a certain place permanently or for a considerable length of time. The place where a man makes his home, or where he dwells permanently or for an extended period of time. It is undeniable that the residences located at Walnut Creek, and Walnut Creek (locations he resided for an extended period of time), were in fact Deputy Cho?s "residences," as de?ned by Black?s Law Dictionary. The location -rented, maintained, and occupied in Oakland, prior to and during her marriage to Deputy Cho, was in fact her ?residence.? 47 l.A. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy Cho continued to assist- in obtaining her permanent residenc status despite being involved in relationships with Deputies -and and maintaining a separate residence (in direct conflict with the information in the immigration documents and the statements he provided during the Federal and Administrative investigations) during the entire process. It is reasonable to assume Deput Cho may have been involved a dating relationship with -after they met in 2008valid visa, was allowed to enter into a marriage with Deputy Cho. They applied for and obtained a marriage license, and the marriage was performed by a county clerk at City Hall in San Francisco. They obtained their marriage certificate as proof of their legal marriage. Deputy Cho and-essentially entered into a ?legal marriage.? The motives behind Deputy Cho and .9 marriage were highly suspect, considering the facts of the Federal and Administrative investigations. -entered the US on an visa? (Student visa) on August 9, 2005. Her visa remained valid for the duration she was a full-time student. Once she completed her course of studies she was entitled to an additional 60 days to prepare for de arture from the US orto transfer to another course of study. The F-1 visa provided with the legal residency status necessary to apply for a permanent residenc status through marriage. Deputy Cho admitted in his interview that he was aware is visa was due to expire; he did not want her to leave and therefore asked her to marry him. There was no requirement for-to remain married once she obtained her permanent residency status (green card). Filing for divorce prior to obtaining her permanent residency status likely would have concluded -s immigration status and would have forced - to leave the US once she completed her course of studies. ICE investigators learned for divorce in October 2013, which was shortly after Deputy Cho was made aware of the allegations and the Federal investigation. The Administrative investigation provided suf?cient facts to conclude Deputy Cho entered into the marriage with -for the sole purpose to assist her in obtaining her permanent residency status, a violation of Federal statutes. Based on the facts of this investigation Deputy Cho's actions were in direct violation of Sheriff?s Office Policies and Procedures. Therefore, I recommend the finding of SUSTAINED as to the violation Policies and Procedures section 1.05.57: Unbecoming Conduct ?Unlawful Conduct. CON 48 LA. 15? 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL As to the second issue, Policies and Procedures section 1.05.43 - Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum, states in part: I. POLICY. A. Social mores and current business customs direct the acceptable conduct of employees in connection with their work. The Office of the Sheriff, as a public service agency, subscribes to this practice and has established guidelines of acceptable conduct for employees. II. GENERAL C. TRUTHFULNESS. Employees shall be truthful with fellow employees and in all their work related activities. During his interview with Internal Affairs, Deputy Cho claimed he and -were married because they ?cared about each other.? He insisted his marriage was "legitimate and truthful" even though he admittedly "joked" to Deputies -and - about the fact he was in a fake marriage. On the surface, it appeared Deputy Cho and -took appropriate steps to become ?legally" married. Deputy Cho continued assisting - with her immigration process despite being involved in relationships with Deputies and -and residing at separate residences from his wife. The Federal and Administrative investigations revealed sufficient facts to disprove the legitimacy of Deputy Cho and -s marriage. Deputy Cho provided statements during his Internal Affairs? interview in support of his marriage and the immigration process that were determined to be untruthful. Deputy Cho admitted he was aware-s visa was due to expire. He stated he did not want her to leave and therefore asked her to marry him. During his interview, Deputy Cho insisted his marriage was ?legitimate and truthful." The following facts disprove statements Deputy Cho made during his Internal Affairs? interview concerning his relationships with Deputies-and his marriage to-, and his (and places of residence in support of his marriage and the subsequent immigration process: 0 Deputy Cho initially denied he was involved in a relationship with Deputy- - Deputy Cho described Deputy as a "co-worker? and a "work-out partner." 49 LA. .4 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL - stated she was involved in an with Deputy Cho starting in 2008 (prior to his marriage to until April 19, 2009. - Deputy? attended Deputy Cho and-s wedding on October 7, 2008. Deputy?said she and Deputy Cho drove to the wedding ceremony together and left together after the ceremony. - Deiuti Cho also attended the wedding of (then) Deputies? April 18, 2009) with Deputy _instead of his wife. He and Deputy-also planned to share a hotel room together that night. The fact that Deputy Cho invited Deputy _(his ?girlfriend?) to his wedding (drove to the wedding ceremony with her and left with her not his wife) after his ceremony), attended a co?workers wedding with Deputy (not his wife) and planned to share a hotel room with her, would lead any reasonable person to believe Deputy Cho was in fact involved in a relationship with Deputy _contrary to his claims that he was not. Deputy Cho was untruthful about his relationship with Deputy _in an attempt to justify his marriage to- and the subsequent immi ration process (Deputy Cho eventually admitted he ?may have dated? Deputy Id lead any reasonable person to question the motives for Deputy Cho and 5 marriage. . Deputy Cho stated he and-?lived together" after they were married until an unknown date in 2012. De ut Cho initially claimed he and- resided at his apartment at Walnut Creek after they were married. - Deputy?stated she spent a lot of time with Deputy Cho prior to and after his wedding, and frequently visited him at his apartment. There was no indication anyone lived with him. Deputy Habib stated he spent a night at Deputy Cho?s apartment; he also stated it appeared Deputy Cho lived at the location alone. - Deputy Cho listed the address as his and .3 "place of residence" in the petitions and affidavits he submitted for-s immigration despite the fact that - maintained a residence in Oakland. It is reasonable to conclude Deputy Cho and - did not live together at - Walnut Creek, after the wedding as Deputy Cho claimed in his CONFIDENI IAL 50 l.A. 2014-037 Date Received: March ?11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL interview (and submitted in the immigration documents). Deputy Cho maintained his residence at the listed apartment while- maintained her residence in Oakland. 0 De ut Cho admitted he was a relationship with Deputy- while he was married to Deputy Cho said, ?It was just a big mess back then. I was kind of in a different relationship with someone else while I was still married, but at the same time I wasn?t seeing her -a lot at different points.? Deputy Cho entered into a one year lease agreement with Deputy-at Walnut Creek on April 1, 2010, during his marriage with - De ut Cho claimed to be an ?opportunist,? stating he moved in with De ut for ?nancial ain ?it would be a reatwa to lit the rent?) - Deputy Cho did not list the address as -s place of residence with immigration. - Deputy Cho also claimed -?lived with" him and Deputy- at the apartment Walnut Creek). He claimed he gave-a key to the apartment and said he was not certain if Deputy-agreed with the arrangement. Deputy Cho stated -came to the apartment when Deputy -was not at home. - Deputy- made no mention of knowing or meeting- Deputy Cho continued to assist-with her immigration process despite being involved in a romantic relationship with Deputy -and living with her in Walnut Creek. Deputy Cho's statement that -lived with him and Deputy -was a complete fabrication and an obvious attempt to justify his continued involvement in -s immigration process, and an attempt to refute the allegations he was involved in a fraudulent marriage. Deputy Cho purchased the Vacaville residence (F) a month after moving in with Deputy-and claimed it was his and 5 place of residence. - Deputy Cho claimed he and-moved into the residence with Deputy Kim (his brother-in-law) and Deputy Kim's family. Deputy Cho and -also listed the Vacaville address as their place of residence with Immigration, 51 LA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL - Deputy Kim admitted Deputy Cho and- never moved into the Vacaville residence. - De uty Cho maintained an apartment with Deputy-in Walnut Creek. maintained her residence in Oakland. - Deputy Kim stated Deputy Cho purchased the house to assist him after he was forced to foreclose on his previous home. They agreed Deputy Kim was responsible to pay for the mortgage and utilities, while Deputy Cho?s name remained on the title of the house and the utilities. Deputy Cho was required to list the address as his ?primary residence? (Mortgage De?nition Primary Residence ?When getting a mortgage, one of the factors that will influence the rate and terms of your loan is whether or not you will occupy the property as a primary residence) for the purpose of complying with the terms of the mortgage agreement. - During continued questionin about the fact that he claimed to reside at the Vacaville residence with while maintaining a residence with Deputy in Walnut Creek, Deputy Cho claimed - also lived at the apartment with him and Deputy Deputy Kim?s statement refuted Deputy Cho's claims that the Vacaville residence was his and ?place of residence.? Deputy Cho attempted to validate his claims concerning his (and -s) places of residence stating his understanding of ?residence? was different than 99% of the general population. Deputy Cho explained that his residence was where he lived, but was different from where he spent most of his time. Viewed objectively, the Administrative investigation provided conclusive facts to support Deputy Cho was untruthful during his Internal Affairs interview. Deputy Cho was untruthful about his marriage to- the immigration process, his relationships with Deputies?and -, and his (and -5) places of residence, in an obvious attempt to disprove the INS Federal lnvestigation?s allegations that he entered into a fraudulent marriage and corroborate the information he provided in the immigration documents. Deputy Cho's conduct and actions were in clear violation of Sheriffs Office Policies and Procedures. It further strengthens the allegations he entered into a fraudulent marriage with - for the sole purpose of assisting her in obtaining her permanent residency status. C. C) I A 52 LA. if 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Therefore, I recommend the ?nding of SUSTAINED as to the violation Policies and Procedures section 1.05.43 - Of?ce of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum Truthfulness. As to the third issue, Policies and Procedures section 1.05. 43 - Of?ce of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum, states in part: I. POLICY. A. Social mores and current business customs direct the acceptable conduct of employees in connection with their work. The Office of the Sheriff, as a public service agency, subscribes to this practice and has established guidelines of acceptable conduct for employees. If. GENERAL H. OFF-DUTY DEMEANOR. Off-duty employees, in or out of uniform, shall not act in public in any manner that brings disrepute or otherwise reflects negatively upon them or on the Office of the Sheriff. Deputy Cho, as a law enforcement officer and representative of the Office of the Sheriff Contra Costa County, has a fundamental duty to conduct himself at the highest level of professionalism and ethical standards, and operate with integrity in every aspect of his life (on and off duty). Federal Investigators attempted to contact Deputy Cho numerous times for an interview. Deputy Cho was non-responsive to their calls for an interview, which ultimately forced Federal Investigators to interview him at Danville PD while he was on-duty. Deputy Cho's unethical behavior and actions not only discredit the Office of the Sheriff Contra Costa County but dishonor the entire law enforcement profession. Therefore, I recommend the finding of SUSTAINED as to the violation Policies and Procedures section 1.05.43 - Office of the Sheriff Propriety and Decorum ?Off?Duty Demeanor C) i A 53 LA. 1+ 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL As to the fourth issue, Policies and Procedures section 1.05.60 - Employee Personal Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or Criminal Investigation, states in part: I. POLICY. A. Employees who have a personal involvement in an on-duty or off- duty arrest or criminal investigation shall immediately advise their supervisor and discontinue any of?cial role in the investigation or arrest; except in exigent circumstances. II. GENERAL. A. CRIMINAL IN VES TIGA IN VOL VEMEN T. A Deputy has personal involvement in a criminal investigation if the Deputy, a relative or friend, is the victim or suspect of the criminal activity being investigated. 5. Any employee, sworn or general, who is arrested for any offense, on duty or off duty, other than a traffic infraction, or who becomes aware that he or she is the focus of a criminal investigatim other than as a victim or witness, shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander. ICE investigators attempted to contact Deputy Cho by phone and left him messages to return their calls, in an attempt to schedule an appointment for an interview. Deputy Cho did not return their calls. During his Internal Affairs' interview, Deputy Cho initially said he was not contacted by ICE agents. He then said, don?t know if he contacted me but I may have gotten a message, which I didn?t know if it was legitimate or not. We (at Danville PD) get a lot of prank calls from peeple saying they are from the IRS or whatever it is.? Deputy Cho then said, "In Danville, I respond to several calls all the time saying that someone from either INS or IRS or whatever agency, and you need to call this number.? Deputy Cho then admitted he received a call on his personal cell phone and said, didn?t know who this person was and did not return his calls.? The agent came to Danville PD and spoke to him. Deputy Cho initially said he was not aware he was the subject of an investigation because the investigator only asked him about application (immigration documents). Deputy Cho then said he gathered the agents were investigating their (his and-?5) application. (3 A 54 LA. tF 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Deputy Cho insisted he was not aware he was the subject of a Federal Investigation and therefore did not notify anyone in his chain of command about the interview. Deputy Cho said when he was interviewed at Danville PD on October 21, 2013, he was ?detailed" to the station for the interview and thought his supervisor was aware. The agents told him they cleared it with his supervisor to talk to him for as long as they needed. Deputy Cho said he assumed the ICE agents had cleared it with his supervisor and was under the impression his supervisor was aware. Viewed objectively, Deputy Cho was interviewed while he was on-duty, assigned to Danville PD. It is reasonable to assume the ICE investigators ?cleared? the interview with Deputy Cho's supervisor as a common courtesy (because Deputy Cho would be unavailable to respond to calls for service during the interview); it did not serve as a notification to the Division Commander or relieve Deputy Cho of his responsibility to notify his Division Commander he was the focus of a criminal investigation. An employee who becomes aware that he or she is the focus of a criminal investigation, other than as a victim or witness, shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander. At the conclusion of his interview with ICE investigators, it was abundantly clear Deputy Cho was the focus of a criminal investigation. Deputy Cho failed to make any efforts to notify his Division Commander (following his interview with ICE investigators on October 21, 2013 until he was placed on Administrative Leave on March 11, 2014), in violation of Sheriff's Office Policies and Procedures. Therefore, I recommend the finding of as to the violation Policies and Procedures section 1.05.60 - Employee Personal Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or Criminal Investigation 55 LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL Additional Considerations ifLA. at 2014-037 Date Received: March 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL I: i E. A LA. 2014-037 Date Received: March 11, 2014 Administrative Inquiry CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL 58 .t . m" . 3 . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ORDER AND NOTICE OF ACTION To: Steven C. CHO Deputy Sheriff NAME ICATION From; DAVID LIVINGSTON SHERIFF AUTHORITY TITLE This is to notify you that the action specified below is hereby taken and that notice of this action is being filed With the Ni advised ofthe imposition ofdisdiplinc in connection with You are hereby suspended! dismissedii assessed! from your position of i Depi?Sheri? in the Sheriff's Department, effective September 24: 2014 forthe following reasons: The basis for this action is set forth on the attached "Order and Notice of Action.? You have the right to appeal this action to the Contra Costa County Merit Board or as otherwise prescribed in the Ocunty Personnel Management Regulationsor Memorandum of Understanding covering your classifica tion. The Personnel Management Regulations and i or applicable Memorandum of Understanding govern such appeals and describe the procedure to be utilized in disciplinary actions. It you have any questions concerning this procegwe?oF/ i c' your rights in this matter, you should read the appropriate regulations or provisions. f? Date: 09/25/2014 Department Head: DAVID 0. lehsi ON. Sheriff-Coroner I A copy of the foregoing notice was personaiiy served I Sent by certi?ed mail to; ff- . Filed with the . r: of r-J . 9 Director of Human Resources If Date: 1' i ?"li Date: Ci? 7 i Ly".Signed"ii Page 1 of 22 - Director of Human R?Lources CANARY - Merit Board PINK - Department GOLDENROD - Employee .8 AKS - Rev. ATLA TEN.T TO NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION (Skelly Notice) Srav a C. CHO, Darn 1 SHERIFF Ch eOn In or about September 2013, the US. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated an investi Tation regarding whether you entered into a fraudulent marriage with Ms.? for the purpose of enabling her to gain permanent resident status, in violation of federal law. Based on a review of the content of the. immigration documents, statements provided by you and - during the immigration process and the investigation, and interviews conducted with third parties ICE investigators concluded that you entered into a fraudulent marriage provided false information in the immigration documents you (and -) submitted (signed under penalty 0111121111111, and were untruthful during the investigation. The ICE investigators further concluded that your conduct violated 18 USC 1001 (Statements 01 1311111 res Generally) 18 USC 1546 (Fraud and Misuse of Permits, and other Docrtmentws) and 8 USC 1325(c) (lmpropet Entry by Alien- Marriage 1 and) A subsequent Internal Affairs investigation conducted by the Of?ce of the Sheriff provides facts which corroborate the 11 dings of the ICE investigation. Your conduct was unprofessional, unethical, and unlawful. Your conduct violated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra _.osta COunty and the Deputy Sheriffs Association, Section 23.1 and Contra Costa Courity Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsections condu tending to bring the merit system and/or O1lice of the Sherift? Coroner into disrepute; (c1) dishonesty or theft; and violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or ordeq given by a supervisor or department head to wit Contra Costa County Sheriff?s Of?ce Pblicy 1. 05. S7 'Unbecoming Conduct which provides in Section II. A. 7 ?Unlau?tl Conduct. Employees will strictly observe all provisions of the law 1'11 both their publid and p1ivate q?airs and will at all times conduct themselves in accordance with all leg I mandates" and Contra Costa County Sheriff?s Of?ce Policy 1.05.43 (?Of?ce of the She iff Propriety and Decomm"), which provides in Section 11.11: DEMEANOR. O?f?duty employees, 1'11 or out shall not act in public in any manner that brings disrepute or otherwise re?ects negatively upon them or on the Office of the Sheriff.? Copies of the policies are attached. 1 1.1.11 The Internal Affairs investigation conducted by this Of?ce provides concluswe facts that demonstrate you were untruthful during your Internal Affairs interview in a transparent attempt to disprove the ICE Investigators? allegations stated in Charge lOne. Such dishonesty only served to strengthen the allegations and findings relating to your behavior. Your conduct vit?ated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra osta County and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association, Section 23.1, and Contra Costa Cou Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsections condu tending to bring the merit system and/or Of?ce of the Sheriff-Coroner into disrepute; dishonesty or theft; and insubordination, to wit, Costa County Sheriffs Of?ce Pglicv 1.05.43 Page 2 i ATTACHMENT T0 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION (Skelly 1N STEVE C. CHO, DEPUTY SHERIFF 11 (?Of?ce of the ?Sheriff PrOpriety and Decorum?), uihich provides in Employees shall be truth?ti with fellow employees ono work minted activities.? A copy of the policy is attached. I l: 1 Charge Three otice) ection NC: in of! their In connection with the allegations stated in Charge One, you did not inform your Division Commander that you were the focus of a criminal investigation, even after yo .1 had an on- duty interview with ICE investigators on or about October 21, 2013. Your conduct violated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra osta County and the Deputy Sheriffs? Association, Section 23.1, and Contra Costa County Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsection violation 0 or reasonable regulation or order given by a supervisor or department head, Costa County Sheriff?s Office Policy 1.05.60 (?Employee Personal Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest 0 Investigation"), which provides in Section II.A.5: ?Any employee, sworn or ger arrested for any offense, on duty or off duty; other than a tro?ic in?actt fany lawful wit, Contra Restraining Criminal erai, who is on, or who becomes aware that he or she is the/hem of a criminal investigation, other than as victim or witness, shoii immediately nor/m; his or her Division Commander.? this policy is attached. - - A copy of secm?s - DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION 5. mm 23.1 Cause for DisciplinarvAction. The appointing authority may dismiss, suspend, demote, or reduce within class, any employee for cause. The following are sufficient causes for such action; the list is indicative rather than inclusive of restrictions and dismissal, suspension, reduction or demotion may be based on reasons other than those specifically mentioned: a. absence without leave, b. i conviction of any criminal act involving moral turpitude, conduct tending to bring the merit system and/or Office of the Sheriff?Coroner into disrepute, disorderly or immoral conduct, e. incompetence or inefficiency, I f. insubordination, . ll i g. being at work under the influence of liquor or drugs, carrying onto the premises liquor or drugs or consuming or using liquor or drugs during work hours and/or on County premises, neglect of dutyi (ie. non-performance of assigned responsibilities), negligent or willful damage to public property or waste of public supplies or equipment, violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order given by a supervisor or department head, willful violation of any of the provisions of the merit system ordinance or Personnel Management Regulations, DSA RANK 8: FILE ~13?rr - 2013 - 2016 ii ?i DU SECTION 23 - DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION DEMO TION I. material and intentional misrepresentation or I concealment of any fact in connection with obtaining employment, rn. misappropriation of County funds or property, n. unreasonable failure or refusal to undergo any physical, medical, and/or exam and/or treatment authorized by this MOU, o. dishonesty or theft, p. excessive or unexcused absenteeism and/or I tardiness, qn sexual harassment, including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when such conduct I has the purpose or effect of affecting i employment decisions concerning an individual. or unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating and hostile working environment. 23.2 Skelly Requirements - Notice of Proposed Action (Skelly Notice). Before taking a disciplinary action to dismiss, suspend for more than five (5) work days (four (4) work days for employees on 4-10 work week; three (3) work days for employees on a 3~12 work week), demote or reduce within class an employee, the appointing authority shall cause to be served personally or by certified mail, on the DSA RANK 3. FILE -1ss - 2013 - 201s MOU Page 5 NUMBER: 1.05.43 Contra Costa County Of?ce of the Sheriff RELATED ORDERS: None. General 'Policy and Procedure t2 ISSUE DATE: 2-1-2006 CLEARANCE: REVISION DATE: 12-18-2013 Of?ce Of the Sheriff CHAPTER: SUBJECT: Personnel Management and Employee Of?ce of the Sheriff Propriety nd Decorum Relations I. POLICY. Al Social mares and current business customs direct the acceptable of employees in connection with their work. The Of?ce of the Sheriff. as a public service agency. subscribes to this practice and has established guidelines of acceptable conduct for employees. 11. GENERAL. A. ADDRESSING OFFICE EMPLOYEES. When in the pre ence of persons from outside the Of?Ce of the Sheriff employees shall address fellow employees by their rank or the title of Mr., Mrs. or Ms. as the circumstances warrant. B. HARMONY AND COOPERATION. Employees shall conduct themselves in a manner that will foster the greatest harmony and cooperation between one another and other Units of the Office of the Sheriff. C. TRUTHFULNESS. Employees shall be truthful with fellow employees and in all their work related activities. D. CRITICISM OF ACTS. 1. Employees shall not publicly criticize any official act of an employee of this County nor an employee of any city. county, state or federal] government wherein they are identi?ed as an employee ofthis Of?ce of the Sheriff, unless authorized by the Sheriff. E0 An employee shall not speak critically or derogatorily to other mployees or to any other person in a manner which could reasonably be expected to bring discredit to the Of?ce of the Sheriff regarding the orders. instructions or policy of any Supervisor or Manager of the Of?ce of the Sheriff. In any case, where there is sound reason to believe that instruction or policy is inconsistent or unjust. the involved emp has the right to respectfully call it to the attention of their Divis Commander through proper channels. I :l Page 6 an order, oyeels) on ?nned adms MDHBA 0833C) H. STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE SHERIFF '8 OFFICE. 1. Employees shall not address any public gathering. join any org appear on radio or television programs, or write articles or me: . for publication wherein they are identi?ed as a representative . Of?ce of the Sheriff, unless authorized by the appropriate Burt Assistant Sheriff. 21. Employees seeking authorization shall submit an interi i memo to the Bureau Assistant Sheriff via the chain of i a i b. Nothing in this section is meant to restrict an employer joining an employee union or association. anization, the zen office COmmand. from LANGUAGE. An employee shall not use threatening, intimidating or insulting language or behave in an insolent or insubordinate manner toward any employee of the Of?ce of the Sheriff. other LOITERING. Off-duty employees shall not loiter in any public place, nor engage in any shopping or leisure activity while in uniform. OFF-DUTY DEMEANOR. Off-duty employees. in or out of uniform, act in public in any manner that brings disrepute or otherwise re?ects upon them or On the Office of the Sheriff. thall not egatively NUMBER: 1.05.57 Contra Costa County Of ?'le She RELATED ORDERS: 1.05.33, 1.05.58, 1.05.28. Geneiliil Policy and Procedure ISSUE DATE: 2?1-2006 CLEARANCE: REVERSION DATE: Of?ce of the Sheriff CHAPTER: - SUBJECT: Personnel Management and Employee Unbecoming Conduct Relations I. POLICY. . A. The public has placed its trust in the Of?ce of the Sheriff to administe an honest effective law enforcement agency. The Of?ce of the Sheriff embraces he public trust and recognizes that effective law enforcement would be severely ampered if such trust were lost. The Of?ce of the Sheriff also recognizes that th 5 public trust can only be retained through the efforts of all employees. Theref e, employees shall conduct themselves in a manner both on duty and off- uty that v.'i not discredit or reflect poorly on the Of?ce of the Sheriff. II. GENERAL. A. UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT. By accepting employment with the Of?ce of the Sheriff, safe and general employees alike are accepting a higher standard ofco duct than is found in other government service. We must be aware that actions on and off duty are subject to scrutiny and reflect on the entire Of?ce of the Sheriff. An employee's behavior may be considered unbec ming conduct if it would normally be viewed with disfavor by the cc mmunity we serve. The following is a list ofunacceptable conduct. Each item may be suf?cient grounds for utilization of the Corrective Counseling System or the Personnel Management Regulations. The list is not all inclusive and other unspeci?ed conduct may also result in action by the Office ofthe Sheriff: a. Unlawful Conduct: Employees will strictly observe all prOvisions ofthe law in both their public and private affairs and will at all times conduct themselves in accordance witf all legal mandates. b. Abuse of Authority: Employees will not abuse the authority granted them by virtue of their employment, nor take iinproper actions through "color of authority." Katina edit-us Mina. 0533:) e. Rule Violations: Employees will not violate any Cour ty or Office of the Sheriff Policies, procedures, orders. dire :tives or regulations, Treatment of Public: Employees will treat all members of the public with respect and courtesy and will refrain from and derogatory conduct and/or profane or inflammatory language. abusive lnsubordination: Failure or deliberate refusal of an employee to obey a lawful order given by a Supervisor or Manageit shall be insubordination. Ridiculing a Supervisor or Manager or his/her orders, whether in or out of their presence, is also insubordination. Disruption of Operations: Acts or omissions contrary Order. Misuse of Equipment: Negligent or willful damage to property or waste ofpublic supplies or equipment. Incompetence or Inefficiency: Failure or inability to a complete properly assigned tasks or failure to undertal obligations. Cowardice: Deputies of the Of?ce of the Sheriff shall display cowardice or fail to support other peace office performance of duty. Misuse of Sick Leave: Abuse or excessive use of sick Subversive Organizations: No employee shall knowin become a member of or become connected with any 51 to good public iequately to required not '3 in the leave. sly ibversive organization. The Sheriff may authorize exceptions. when necessary, for a law enforcement function. Outside Associations: No employee shall knowingly maintain outside associations that jeopardize the security or integrity of the Of?ce ofthe Sheriffor bring discredit to the law enforcement profession. Personal Relationships: Employees will not allow thei relationships to interfere with Of?ce ofthe Sheriff bus the performance oftheir assigned duties- Additionally, fraternization with persons in custody. arrestees. detair criminal defendants or other persons the employee has enforcement contact with, is prohibited. personal iness or tees, had an Indebtedness: Employees shall manage their debts in a manner that will not re?ect poorly on their position with the i?ce of the Sheriff. They shall avoid situations where creditors are seeking legal judgments or garnishment of their salaries. Other: Any conduct which tends to bring the County or the Office ofthe Sheriff into disrepute. [3 1'00! This miu?it?tul? comp: m'un oft/ii: Corie is current as 4, 301.7 (see TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 1001. Statements or entries generally 3 Except as otherwise provided 111 this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of' the executive, legislative, orjudicial branch of the Government ofthe United States, mowingly and willfully? (1) falsi?es, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, ?ctitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, ?ctitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be ?ned under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involve 5 international or domestic terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 1093, 110, or 117, or section 1591, tt en the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. I Subsection does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party 5 counsel, for statements, representations, writings 0r documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection shall apply only to? administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, Jr a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any of?ce or of?cer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of arty committee, subcommittee, commission or office ofthe Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub, L. 103?322, title Sept. t3, 1994. 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104?292, 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. [08458, title VI, 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 115% Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109?248, title I, 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.) Historical and Revision Notes Based on title 1940 (id, 80 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, ?35. 35 Stat. 1095; Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 94. 40 Stat. 1015:.Tune13, 1934, C11. 537. 4d 197). Section 80 oftitle 13. U.S.C., 19-10 ad, was divided into two parts. The provision relating to t?alse claims was incorporated in section 237 ofthis title. Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of de?nition ot'?principal" in section 2 of this title. Words "or any corporation in which the United States ofArnerica is a stockholder" in said section 80 were omitted as unnecessary in view anet?mition of?agency" in section 6 ofthis title. in addition to minor changes ot'phrascnlogy. the maximum term of imprisonment was changed From 10 5 years to be consistent with comparable sections. (See rcviscr's note under section 287 oftliis title.) Amendments 2006~?~Subsec. Pub. L. [09*248 inserted last sentence in concluding provisions. i 0 NB: This uno?lcia! compiiorinn ofthe U. 5. Code is current as 4, 2022 {rue Hi USC 100! 2004?Subsec. Pub. L. 108?458 substituted ?be ?ned under this title. imprisoned not more than 5 offense involves international er domestic terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331), imprisoned not more or both" for ?be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both? in concluding provi: l996??Pub. L. 104?292 reenacted section eatchline without change and amended text generally. Prior to text read as follows: ?Whoever. in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the knowingly and willfully t'alsities, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme. or device a material fact. false. fictitious; or fraudulent statements or representations. or makes or uses any t?alse writing or docun the same to contain any lillse. ?ctitious or fraudulent statement or entry. shall be lined under this title not more than ?ve years, or both." 1994~?Pub. L. 103-?332 substituted "fined under this title" for ?fined not more than $10,000". Change of Name Reference to United States magistrate or to magistrate deemed to refer to United States magistrate judg section 321 of Pub. 1.. 101?65?, set out as a note under section 531 ol'Title 23. Judiciary and Judicial Pt Short Title of 2004 Amendment Pub. L. 108475, 1. July 15. 2004. 118 Stat. 1331, provided that: ?This Act [enacting section 1023A amending sections 641 and 1028 of this title. and enacting provisions listed in a table relating to scntenci set out as a note under section 994 of Title 23. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the '1 Penalty Enhancement Act? Short Title of 2003 Amendment Pub. 1.. 103-21, title VI. 607(a). Apr. 30, 2003, 11'?r Stat. 689, provided that: ?This section [amending of this title] may be cited as the 'Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense or TD Act'.? i Short Title of i000 Amendment Pub. L. 106~5?8. 1, Dec. 28. 2000. 114 Stat. 3035, provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1025 repealing section 1733 of this title. and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 1028 01' this cited as the ?Internet False Identi?cation Prevention Act Short Tltle of 1993 Amendments Pub. L. 10513 I 1, Oct. 30, 1993, 12 Stat. 3007, provided that: "This Act [amending sections 982. 1C oFthis title and section 1115 nithe Ethics in Government Act of 978, Pub. L. 95?Government Organization and Employees. and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 11k] and section 994 ol'Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the ?identity Theft and Deterrence Act of' 1998'.? Pub. L. 105-172. {in 1. Apr. 24. 1998, 112 Stat. 53. provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1029 of enacting provisions set out as a note tinder section 994 ol'Title 2S. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] 111E the ?Wireless Telephone Protection Act'." Short Title of 1996 Amendment Section 1 of Pub. L. 104-292 provided that: ?This Act [amending this section. sections 1515 and 600i and section 1365 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the ?False Statements A Actof199 1 Short Title on 994 Amendment Section of Pub. L. 103?322, as amended by Pub. L. 104?294. title V1, 604(b)(34). Del. 1 Stat. 3508. provided that: ?This section [amending section 1030 ol? this title] may be cited as the 'Con Amendments Act of 1994?," Short Title of 1990 Amendment I i Pub. L. till?64?. title XXV. ?2511t1, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4859, provided that: "This title [se classi?catit?m] may be cited as the Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and 'i'axpnyer of 1990?." . s'cprint. him/ti). ears or. ifthe than 8 years. ions. amendment, United States 1' makes any lent knowing imprisoned pursuant to oeedttre. of this title. ng guidelines dentityr The? section 1023 Act of 2003? ofthis title, title] may be and 2516 indie to Title 8 of this title Assumption this title and ty he cited as ofthis title, ccountabiliry l, 1996. 110 tputer Abuse Tables for tecovety Act page 1 1 1 NB: This unn?lct?oi compilation ofrhe US. Code is current as oj'Jort. rt, 201.? (see 18 USC 1'00! Short Title of 1989 Amendment Pub. L. 10l?123. 1. Oct. 23. 1989. 103 Stat. 759. provided that: ?This Act {amending section 1031 repealing section 293 of this title. enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031 01' repealing provisions set out as a note under section 293 ofthis title] may be cited as the ?Major Fraud Act. Short Title of 1988 Amendment I Pub. L. 1. Nov. 19, 19811, 102 Stat. 463l,lprovided that: ?This Act [enacting sections 293 and title and section 256 ot'Title 41. Public Contracts, amending section 2324 oFTitlc 10, Armed Forces, and ol'Title 3 I Money and Finance. enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031 01' this 2324 of Title 10, and section 522 ol'Tille 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and repeating provision note under section 2334 ol?Title 10] may be cited as the 'Major Fraud Act of 1933'.? Short Title of 1986 Amendment I Pub. L. 99?474,? 1.0ct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1213. provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1030 oft be cited as the ?Computer Freud and Abuse Act ot?1936?." Short Title of 1984 Amendment Pub. L. 98?473, title Il,? 1601, Oct. 12. 1934. 93 Stat. 2133. provided that: ?This chapter [chapter of title 11 ot'Pub. L. 93?473, enacting section 102?} of this title and provisions set cut as a note under set this title] may be cited as the ?Credit Card Fraud Act oi~ 1934?." Pub. L. 93-473, title 11. 2101 .Oct. 12. 1984.93 Stat. 21 90. provided that: ?This chapter [chapterXXl of title [1 of Pub. L. 98?473, enacting section 1030 oFthis title and provisions set out as a note under set. this title] may be cited as the ?Counterl?cit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984?] Short Title of 1982 Amendment Section 1 of Pub. L. Ll't'?3?lli provided: "That this Act [enacting sections 1028 and H38 ofthis title at section 3001 ot'Title 39. Postal Service] may be cited as the ?False Identi?cation Crime Control Act of 1 rcpt-int. of this title, his title. and 1031 ofthis section 3730 title, section 3 Slit {Jul as B. its title] may 1601?1603) tion 1029 of 2101?2103) tion 1030 of 1 id amending 982?." TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1545. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents I8 NB. Y'hir umy??c'irri compiiulion oft)?: US. Code is current at rimei 4, 201-2 (see PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 75 - PASSPORTS AND VISAS Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence ofauthorized stay or employment in the or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been proCured by means of a or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or Whoever, except under direction of the Attorney General or the Commissioner of the In Naturalization Service, or other proper of?cer, knowingly possesses any blank pertni sells, brings into the United States, or has in his control or possession any plate in plate designed for the printing of permits, or makes any print, photograph, or impression of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit or other document required for entry i States, or has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been adepted by the Attort the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the printing of such or documents; or Whoever, when applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, or other docu for entry into the United States, or for admission to the United States personates anor appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immig appearing under an assumed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity, or sell disposes of, or offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, such visa, permit, or othe any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under reprint. him nonimmigrant prescribed by United States, permit, border or regulation towing it to be my false claim migration and L, or cngraves, likeness ofa in the likeness ate the United icy General or visas, permits, required her, or falsely ration laws by or otherwise document, to :ction 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, af?davit, or other document required by the immigration laws prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, af?davit, or other do contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law it Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was facilitate an act of international terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331 of this title)), 2i offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 la] 10 years (in the case of the ?rst or second such offense, if the offense was not committi such an act ofintemational terrorism or a drug traf?cking crime), or 15 years (in the cas offense), or both. Whoever uses-- - (1) an identi?cation document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the docu issued lawfully for the use of the possessor, (2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the docum (3) a false attestation, for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274Alb) of the [migration and N: shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, (1 activity ofa law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a subdivision ofa intelligence agency ofthe United States, or any activity authorized under title of the 0rd Page! 3 or regulations cumcnt which fact? committed to 3 years (if the ofthis title)), :d to facilitate of any other ment was not Lot is false, or ttionality Act, intelligence irate, or ol?an anized Crime 18 USC 15-16 NB: This nno?ieitd compilation of the US. Code is current as oj'Jmt. 4, 2012 tree Control Ao't of 1970 (18 U.S.C. note prec. 3481).1 For purposes of this section, the term ?State" means a State oFthc United States, the District ot?Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. Footnotes i . 1 See References l] Text note below. i (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 771; June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title IV, 402(3), 66 Stat. 275; Pub. L. 94?550. 5, Oct. 13, 1976, 911 Stat. 2535; Pub. L. 99?603, title 1, 103(a), Nov. 6, 1986, 1CD Stat. 3380; . Pub. L. 100?525, 9? Oct. 24, 1988,102 Stat. 2610;1?ub. L. 101?647, title {93550, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4926; Pub. L. 103-322, title 130009tali4), (S), title ?33001 HP). Sept. 13, 1994, 103 Stat. 2030. 2145; Pub. L. 104?208, div. C, title It, 214, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009?569, 3009-572; Pub. L. 104?294, title VI, ?607(m), Oct. ll, 19%, 110 Stat. 3512; Pub. L. 107?273, div. B, title 1V, ?4002(a)(3), Nov. 2, 2002, ll6 Stat. 1806.) Historicial and-Revision Notes Based On section 231 .1t?title 8, U.S.C., 1940 ed, Aliens and Nationality (May 26, 1924, ch. 190, 22, 43 Stat. 165). Words "upon convict -In thereof? were omitted as surplusage since punishment can be imposed only aller a conviction. Fine was reduced to $2,000 to con form with sections embracing offences ot'cornparablc gratify. Minor changes were made in phraseology. References in Text The immigration laws. referred to in subsec. are classi?ed generally to Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. See also section 1101 ot?Tillc ii. a Section 2'1'4A(b) of the immigration and Nationality Act, referred to in subsec. is classi?ed to Section 1324a of Title 8. Title of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. is title of Pub. L. Ell?4 52, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 933, which was set out as a note preceding seetion 3431 ofthis title. and was repealed by Pul?. L. 98?473, title ll.? Oct. 12, 1984, 93 Stat. 216]. See section 3521 et seq. title. Am en dritents 2002?Subsec. Pub. L. 107~273 substituted ?to facilitate" for ?to facility" in concluding par. Pub. L. 10?~208 substituted ?which contains any such false statement or which fai to Contain any reasonable basis in law or fact? for ?containing any such false statement? in fourth par. and ed not more than .15 years . loose was committed to Facilitate an act ol? intcmatinnal terrorism (as de?ned in section 23.11 01' this title?, 20 year-t til the offense was committed to facilitate a drug traf?cking crime {as de?ned in section 929 ofthis title?, 10 wars (in the case ofthe ?rst or second such offense. ifthe offense was not to facility such an act 01? interr. tittal terrorism or a drug traf?cking crime). or [5 years (in the case ol?ttny other chnse)" l'or ?imprisoned not mot. Jun 10 years? in concluding par. Pub. L. 104494 inserted at end ?For purposes ot?this section, the term ?State? means a State of the United States. the District oft?olumbia, and any commonwealth. territory, or possession ol'the United States." 1994*Stlb3-EC. ll. L. 103?322, 33001 amended directory language olPub. L. 101?641 ,5 3550. See 1990 Amendment note bt't Pub. L. 1034! 22, 1 Substituted ?10 years" for ??ve years" in concluding par. Subsec. iPub. L. 1 .3422, 130009ta)(5), in concluding provisions, substituted ?under this title, 1mg risoned not more than 5 years? for "in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more titan two years". Pub. L. 101?647, 3550, as amended by Pub. L. 103?322, ?330011(p). substituted "Shall be ?ned under this title" for "till be lined in accordance with this title" in concluding par. l933?Pub.1?L. 100?: 5 amended Pub. L. 994103. See 1981': Amendment note below. I 99?01' as amended by Pub. L. 100425, substituted ?other documents" For ?other entry documents" in section catchline. cesignated existing provisions as subsec. substituted ?permit, border crossing card, alien Fag-2e- 14 13 USC 1546 This itrro?it'irrl conptidrion oft/w US. Code is current m'quttrI. 2012 (see registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or a. evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States" for ?or other document required for entry into the United States" and for ?or document" in ?rst pan. substituted "in accordance with this title? for "not more than $2,000" 1 par.. and added subSecs. and concluding 1976?Pub. L. 94?550 inserted or as permitted under penalty ot?peijury wider section 1746 nt?title 28, United States Code. knowingly subscribes as true.? after ?Whoever knowingly makes under oath? in fourth par, 1952mm June 27, 1952, made section applicable to entry documents other than visas and permits. Effective Date of 1996 Amendment Amendment by section 211(a)(2) of Pub. L. 104?208 applicable with respect to offenses occurring on or after Sept. 30, 1996.5.pe section 211(c) ofPub. L. 104?208. set out as a note under section 1028 of this title. Effective Date of 1994 Amendment Section J30011(p) of Pub. L. 103422 provided that the amendment made by that section is effective its of the date on which section 3550 ot?Pub. L. 101?64? took effect. Effective Date of 1938 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 100625 effective as it? included in enactment of Immigration Reform and C1 1086. Pub. L. 99-603. see section 2(3) of Pub. 1.. set out as a note under section 1101 ot?T and Nationality. Transfer of Functions Functions ?tested by law in Attorney General, Department of Justice, or any other of?cer or any ag Department, with respect to the inspection at regular inspection locations at ports ofentry ol?pcrsons. an of persons. entering or leaving the United States. were to have been transferred to Secretary ofthc Trea~ Reorg. Plan No.15] eff. Juiy i, 1973. 38 RR. I5932. 87 Slat. 109]. set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Organization and i onees. The transfer was negated by section L. 93?253, Mar. Stat. 50, which repealed section 2 of [9?13 Reorg. Plan No. 2, eff. July 1. I973. Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Fun: For abolition of immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions. and treatment of related to note set out-under section 1551 ot?Titie 8. Aliens and Nationality. _3 Page 15 tntrol Act of tie 8, Aliens bncy of that [1 documents ury by 19?} Government 16, 1914. 83 :tions 'crences. sec 23 USC [7-1'6 NB: This unq??iciui compilation oj'tlre US. Code is current as ofJan. 4, 201.7 (see TITLE 28 -JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PARTV - PROCEDURE CHAPTER 115 DOCUMENTARY 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced or proved by the sworn declaration, veri?cation, certi?cate, statement, oath, or aftida? of the person making the same (other than a deposition, Or an oath ot?ot'lice, or an to be taken before a speci?ed ot?ticial other than a notary public), such matter may, ?1 and effect, he supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unswom declaratio verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, a penalty ofperjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (I) if executed without the United States: declare verify, or state) under pen under the laws of the United States ot?America that the foregoing is true and correct. Exec (Signature)'l. - (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, passessions, or commonwealths: certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct (date). (Added Pub. L. 94-550. Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.) (Signamre)? Prior Provisions A prior section H46 was renumbered section 1745 oJ this title. irjl l-?il il ii -. -: requirement established, m, in writing lath required 'ith like force It, certi?cate, is true under alty ofperjury uted on (date). ?l declare (or Executed on II it NB: This c'ompiiation ofrht: US. Code is current as othm. It, {rate TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION Part - General Penalty Provisions I 1325. Improper entry by alien Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment offacts Any alien who (I) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration of?cers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration of?cers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a will?Jlly false or misleading representation or the will?il concealment of a material fact, shall, for the ?rst commission ol~ any such offense, be ?ned under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be ?ned under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration of?cers shall be subject to a civil penalty oil-? (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount speci?ed in paragraph (I) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection arc in addition to, and not in lieu of. any criminal at other civil penalties that may be imposed. Marriage fraud i Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or ?ned not more than $250,000, or both. i Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a Commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 yearsl lined in accordance with title 18, or both. (June 27, 1952, Ch. 477, title ll, Ch. 8, ?275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99?639, NOV. 10, I936, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. [til?649, title I, 121(b)(3), title v. swoon), Nov. 29, 1990, tea Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. title Dec.12, I991, IUS Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104?208, div. C, title 105(3). Sept. 30, I996, Stat. 3009?656.) I Amendmeints ill I I 1996?Subseos. It: Pub. L. 104?203 added subsec. and redesignated former subsets. and as and te5pcctiveiy. i 1991?Subsec. Pub. L. 102?232 substituted "?ned under title 13" for "?ned not more than 52.0th (or, fgrester. the amount provided under title It?ll". l990?Sabseci Pub. 101-649. S43(b)(2). inserted ?or attempts to enter" after "(ll enters" and ?aJIempts to BRIEF ili'i?l? and substituted "shall. [or the ?rst commission nl?any such nl?l'ensc, be lined not more than $2,000 (or, it?greater, the amount provided under title Iii} or imprisoned not more Ihan 6 months. or both and, for a subsequent commission 01? any such ul'Fcnse. be ?tted under title or imprisoned not more than 2 years? for i Page 17 8 USC 1325 This nonmetal compilation of the US. Code is current or anan. 4, Jill! {see reprint. him ?shall, for the ?rst commission of any such offenses, be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a ?ne of not more than $500, or by he subsequent commission ofany such otTenscs shall be guilty oFa felony and upon conviction by imprisonment i. not more than two years. or by a line an01 more than $1,000". Subscc. (c)i Pub. L. 1014549. added subsec. lQliti?Pubt L. 99?639 designated existing provisions as subsec. and added subsec. Effective Date of 1995 Amendment Section with) oi?div. of Pub. L. [041?208 provided that: ?The amendments made by subsection [a section] shall apply to illegal entries or attempts to enter occurring on or after the ?rst day oftlte sixth men after the date ofthe enactment ofthis Act lSept. 30. 1996]." Effective Date of 1991 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 102?233 effective as it' included in the enactment of the Immigration Act ofl 10141549. see section 310(1) of Pub. L. 102?232. set out as a note under section 1101 ofthis title. Effective Date of 1990 Amendment Amendment by section 121(thJ) ol? Pub. L. 101?649 effective Oct. 1, 1991. and applicable beginning wit [992. see section ltilta) ofl?ub. L. 101-649. set out as a note under section 1 101 of this title. Amendment by section 543(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101-649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 1990 5430:) 01' Pub. L. 101?649, set out as a note under section 1331 of'lltis title. tit. and for a be punished 'nending this th beginning ism, Pub. L. ?scal year see section Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions For abolition oflmmioration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related reierences, see note set out under a on 1551 ofthis title. 9 NUMBER: 1.05.60 Contra Costa County Of?ce of [he Sheliff RELATED ORDERS: 1.05.56. General Policy and Pro?cedt?de C. l7. ISSUE DATE: ad -2006 CLEARANCE: REVISION DATE: 1143-20139? Of?ce Of the Sheriff CHAPTER: ?l SUBJECT: Personnel Management and Employee Employee Personal Restrainin Orderfl?emporary Relations Restraining Order or Involve ent in an Arrest or i Criminal lnvesti ation I I 1. POLICY. A. Employees who have a personal involvement in an on?duty or off?duty rrest or criminal investigation shall immediately advise their superviSor and di ontinue any of?cial role in the investigation or arrest; except in exigent circum. ances. II. GENERA L. A. CRIMINAL A personal involvement in a criminal investigation if the l)eputy. a relativ or friend, is the victim or suspect of the criminal activity being investigate . I. A Deputy having such personal involvement shall not become i volved in a criminal investigation that does not ariSe out of the Deputy?s normal duty assignment unless directed or authorized to do so by the puty?s Supervisor upon full disclosure of the Deputy?s personal involv meat. 2. Nothing in this Policy is intended to prevent any Deputy from investigating a crime in which the Deputy is personally involve . on duty or off duty. when exigent circumstances threaten the loss of evi ence. the loss of witnesses. Or the escape ofthe suspect, or when there is possibility of serious injury to the Deputy or others. When such xigent circumstances cease, so shall the Deputy's efforts to further inv stigatc the crime. 3- Any employee observing suspected criminal conduct by another . employee of the Office of the Sheriff. whether it occurs on duty eff . duty. shall immediately report the incident to his or her immedia sapervisor. 4. Any employee receiving or developing information that any em of Hi the Of?ce of the Sheriff is a suspect in any criminal activity shal immediately notify his or her immediate supervisor. 5. Any employee. sworn or general. who is arrested for any offense on duty or off duty. other than a traffic infraction. or who becomes aware that he or she is the focus of a criminal investigation, other than as a victim or witness, shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander. Page 19 6. Any communication with outside agencies relating to an employee of the Of?ce of the Sheriff, who is the subject of that agency's investigation, shall be conducted at the Lieutenant level or above. 7. If an Of?ce of the Sheriff employee who is traveling on of?cial business is the subject ofa criminal investigation or is seriously injured or incapacitated, the supervising Lieutenant shall discontinue the employee?s involvement in the training or meeting, and arrange for the employee to return as soon as practical. giving consideration to the needs of the investigating agency and the health status of the employee. EMPLOYEE PERSONAL RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER LEC IM PEDIMENT. 1. Any sworn employee who is served with a restraining order the him or her from possessing a firearm, or who is the subject of: 3A1. It restricts my other restriction that would impede his or her ability to function as an armed peace of?cer shall immediately notify his Or her Division Commander. Page 20 ll (0) 'Contest. Unless, within seven (7) days of the receipt of the notice, the appointing authority acknowledges that the resignation could have been believed to be coerced, this question shall be handled as an appeal to the Merit Board. Disposition. Upon appeal, the Merit Board shall determine whether the resignation was coerced and, if not, the resignation shall stand. If coerced, the resignation shall be deemed revoked and the employee retumed to duty effective on the day following the decision of the Merit Board, but without loss of seniority or pay, abject to the employee's duty to mitigate damages. ll: - 1103. TENURE DISMISSAL. SUSPENSION AND REDUCTION. . tenure of every of?cer or employee holding permanent status in a position in the merits tem shall be during good behavior, and the rendering of ef?cient service, but any su of?cer or employee may be dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation for cause. 1104. 'iliie appointing authority may dismiss, suspend or demote employee for cause. The following are suf?cient causes for such action; the list is ind cative rather than inclusive of restrictions and dismissal, suspension or demotion may be based on reasons other than those specifically mentioned: i absence without leave, conviction of any criminal act involving moral turpitude, i conduct tending to bring the merit system into disrepute, disorderly or immoral conduct, incompetence or inefficiency, i insubordination, being at work under the in?uence of liquor or drugs, carry onto the premises liquor or drugs or consuming or using liquor or drugs during work hours and/or on County premises, neglect of duty, negligent or willful damage to public property or waste of public supplies or equipment, 0) violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order given by a supervisor or depanment head, willful violation of any of the provisions of the Merit System Ordinance or Personnel Management Regulations, (1) material and intentional misrepresentation or concealment of any fact in connection with obtaining employment, (to) misappropriation ofCounty funds or property, (r1) unreasonable failure or refusal to undergo any physical, medical and/or exam and/or treatment authorized by these regulations, (0) dishonesty or theft, excessive or unexcused absenteeism and/or tardiness, i ll ANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Page 54 0 0 ii exual harassment including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when such conduct has the purpose or effect of affecting employment decisions concerning an individual, or unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating or hostile working environment. (Amended 09/25/84) llO4.lSusgension. Notwithstanding Section 1104, management and professional employees may not be suspended for a period of less than one (1) week. (Added 11/17/92) PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS . Pace U1 U1 . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . TICE OF PROPOSED ACTION (SKELLY NOTICE) II Section 1108.1: Person el Management Regulation Administrative Bulletin 416: Project Positions Applicable Memorandum of Understanding Steve'C. CHO TO: NAME CLASSIFICATION Dep Jty Sheriff ADDRESS DEPARTMENT Sheriff's Under Part II, Section 1168.1 of the County Personnel Management Regulations, Administrative Bulletin 416 and the applicable Memorandum of Understanding (if any) before taking action to dismiss, suspend or de the appointing authority must give a notice of proposed action. This notice is to inform you of the depa take the following action: (1) i Terminate your employmelnt. effective September 8, 2014. emote an employee rtment's proposal to The following constiIutes the charges or grounds for this action: I (2) See the attached, "Attachment to Notice of Proposed Action (Skelly Notice) Deputy Sheriff." Steve C. Cho, i (Charges should be completely expressed. If more space is needed. add supplemental sheets.) (3) Attached is copy of regulations on which this action is based. I (4) All written materials..repons and documents upon which this action ls'based are available for your review. You have the right to respoInd to this notice either orall within seven (7) prior to taking final action. The appointing authority may extend the response period you havecbewn sus (5) disposition oftfie yarg?es. ?i . it I. DAVIDD. LIVINGSTON. SHERIFF-CORONER Nppornting Authority NOTE: If the employeei is being placed on temporary leave of absence with pay, complete and attach supplemental form AK183. i Date A copy of the foregoing personally served/sent by on thisZ7 day of Au NAME: 1 Page 1 of 22 CANARY - Employee Relation?s Copy PINK - Department'sypy I I WHITE - Employee's Copy AK 182 (6/82) or in writing (or both) to the up: calendar days of the issuance of this notice. Any response you make it pended due to pending criminal charges, disciplinary action ma August 2 Cris I I Ct egg/r52? iersigned, vill be considered or good cause. if be taken after 3. 2014 otice was by me ertified mail gust . 2014 I ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE or PROPOSED AcnoN (Skelly Noti Steve C. CHO, DEPUTY SHERIFF In or about September 2013, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement initiated an investi ation re rarding whether yOu entered into a fraudulent marriage with ?lm the purpose of enabling her to gain perman? nt resident status, in violation of federal law. Based on a review of the content of the documents, statements provided by you and -during the immigration pro ess and the e) Chara, One you entered into a fraudulent marriage, provided false information in the documents you (and -) submitted (signed under penalty of perjury) and were untruthful during the investigation. The ICE investigators further conclude that your conduct violated 18 USC 1001 (Statements 0r Entries Generally), 18 1546 (Fraud and Misuse of HMS. Permits, and other Documents), and 8 USC 1325(c) (lmpraper Entry by Alien - Marriage Fraud). A subsequent internal Affairs i vestigation conducted by the Of?ce of the Sheriff provides facts which corroborate the ?n ings of the ICE investigation. Your conduct was unprofessional, unethical, and unlawful. Your conduci violated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra sta County and the Deputy Sheriffs" Association, Section 23.1, and Contra Costa Count Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsections (0) conduct tending to bring the merit system and/or Of?ce of the Sheriff-Coroner into disrepute; dishonesty or theft; and violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order supervisor or department head, to wit, Contra Costa County Sherist Of?ce Po (?Unbecoming Conduct?), which provides in Section ?Unlawful Conduct: Employees will strictly observe all provisions afthe law in both their public and private a?airs and will at all times conduct themselves in accordance with all legal mandates? and Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office Policy 1.05.43 (?Office ofthe Sheriff Propriety and Decomm"), which provides in Section ILH: DEMEANOR. Q??lduty employees. in or out tyrant/arm, shall not act in public in any manner that brings disrepair? or otherwise re?ects negatively upon them or on the (Mine ofthe Sheriff? Capies of the policies are attached. The Internal Affairs investigation conducted by this Of?ce provides conclusive facts that demonstrate you were untruthful during your Internal Affairs interview in a transparent attempt to disprove the ICE Investigators? allegations stated in Charge One. Such dishonesty Only served to strengthen the allegations and ?ndings relating to your behavior. 1 Two Your conducl violated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra Coita Coanty and the Deputy Sherilfs? Association. Section 23.1, and Contra Costa County Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsections conduct tending to bring the merit system and/or Office of the Sheriff-Coroner into disrepute; dishonesty or theft; and insubordination, to wit, Costa County Sheriff?s Of?ce MW 1.05.43 Page 2 ATTACHMENT T0 NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION (Skelly Notice) C. CH0, Darurv SHERIFF I (?Of?ce of the heriff Propricty and Decorum"), which provides in Section II.C: Employees shall be irtilh?il t-vith fellow employees and work related activities. A capy of the policy is attached. 1 Charge ThrLe l. . II . i In connection with the allegations stated in Charge One. you did not inform yr Commander that you were the focus of a criminal investigation, even after 3/01. duty interview with investigators on or about October 21, 2013. Your conduct violated the Memorandum of Understanding between Contra C: and the Deputy Sheriffs? Association. Section 23.1, and Contra Costa Count in all their tur Division 1 had an on- )sta County Personnel Management Regulations, Section 1104, concurrent subsection violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation or order given by a supervisor or department head, to Costa County Sheriff?s Of?ce Policy 1.05.60 (?Employee Personal wit, Contra Restraining Order/Temporary Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or Criminal investigation?), which provides in Section II.A.5: ?Any employee, sworn or gen eral. who is arrested for any of?nse, on duty or duly, other than a traffic infraction, or who becomes aware that he or she is the focus of a criminal investigation, otheit than as a victim or witness, shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander.? this policy is attached. 7 A copy of ?.4434 list?: secno?s DISMISSAL. SUSPENSION a. oemonon - . 23.1 Cause for Disciplinarv Action. The appointing authority may dismiss. suspend, demote. or reduce within class. any employee for cause. The following are sufficient causes for such action; the list is indicative rather than inclusive of restrictions and dismissal. suspension, reduction or demotion may be based on reasons other than those specifically mentioned: a. .2 absence without leave. b. conviction of any criminal act involving moral turpitude. c. conduct tending to bring the merit system i and/or Office of the Sheriff?Coroner into disrepute1 d. disorderlyor immoral conduct. e. i incompetence orinefficiency. f. . insubordination. 9. being at work under the influence of liquor or drugs. carrying onto the premises liquor or i drugs or consuming or using liquor or drugs i during work hours and/or on County premises. h. 1neglect of duty.i(i.e. non-performance of assigned reaponsibilities), i. negligent or willful damage to public property or waste of public supplies or equipment, j. violation of any lawful or reasonable regulation I or order given by a supervisor or department head. i k. willful violation of any of the provisions of the merit system ordinance or Personnel Management Regulations. 2 DSARANKS-FILE -137- Page 4 i SECTION 23 - DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION 8. DEMOTION material and intentional misrepresentation or concealment of any fact in connection with obtaining employment. m. misappropriation of County funds or property, n. Unreasonable failure or refusal to undergo any - physical, medical, and/or exam and/or treatment authorized by this MOU, o. dishonesty or theft, p. excessive or unexcused absenteeism arid/or tardiness, . q. sexual harassment, including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for it sexual favors. and other verbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when such conduct has the purpose or effect of affecting employment decisions concerning an individual, or unreasonably interfering with an I individual's work performance. or creating an intimidating and hostile working environment. 23.2 Skelly Requirements - Notice of Pronosed - Action [Skelly Notice). Before taking a disciplinary action to dismiss, suspend for more than five (5) work days (four (4) work days for employees on 4-10 work week; three (3) work days for employees on a 3-12 work week). demote or reduce within class an employee, the appointing authority shall cause to be served personally or by certified mail, on the DSA RANK 3. FILE -138 - 2013 - 2015 ivou i? Page 5 GENERAL. A. ADDRESSING SHERIFF '8 OFFICE EMPLOYEES. When in the pres (f NUMBER: 1.05.43 'ntra Costa County Of?ce Of the Sheriff RELATED ORDERS: -. None. General Policy and Procedure ISSUE DA TE: 2? i 3:006 CLEARANCE: REVISION DATE: ?dB-2013." Of?ce of the Sher" CHAPTER: i, i SUBJECT: Personae Management and Employee Office of the Sheriff Propriety 1nd Decorum i Relations L: I. POLICY. A. Social mores and current business customs direct the acceptable conduct of employees in connection with their work. The Of?ce of the Sheriff, as a public service agency, subscribes to this practice and has established guidelines of acceptable conduct for employees. H. ence of from outside the Office of the Sheriff employees shall address fellow persons employees by their rank or the title of NIL. Mrs, or Ms. as the circumstances warrant. B. HARMONY AND COOPERATION. Employees shall conduct themse ves in a manner that will foster the greatest harmony and cooperation between one another and other Units of the Of?ce of the Sheriff. C. TRUTH FULNESS. Employees shall be truthful with fellow employees and in all their work related activities. D. CRITICISM OF OFFICIAL ACTS. Employees shall not publicly Criticize any of?cial act of an employee of this Coauty nor an employee of any city. county, state or federal government wherein they are identified as an employee of this Office of the Sheriff, unless authorized by the Sheriff. An employee shall not Speak critically or derogatorily to other employees or to any other person in a manner which could reasonably be e? to bring discredit to the Of?ce of the Sheriff regarding the order instructions or policy of any Supervisor or Manager of the Of?c Sheriff. In any case, where there is sound reason to believe that instruction or policy is inconsistent or unjust. the involved empl has the right to respectfully call it to the attention of their Divisi Commander through pr0per channels. Page 6 (peered 5. of the an order, PYBCISJ pn KDHOJ AWIIBA 0833C) STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE OFFICE. 1. Employees shall not address any public gathering, join any org appear on radio or television programs, or write articles or mar for publication wherein they are identi?ed as a representative cl - Of?ce of the Sheriff. unless authorized by the appropriate Bure 3 Assistant Sheriff. (1. ii b- Employees seeking authorization shall submit an inter? memo to the Bureau Assistant Sheriff via the chain of Nothing in this section is meant to restrict an employer joining an employee union or association. anization, uscripts the au Ljf?ce command. from LANGUAGE. An employee shall not use threatening, intimidating or language or behave in an insolent or insubordinate manner toward any employee of the Of?ce of the Sheriff. LOITERIN G. Off-duty employees shall not loiter in any public place, 1 in any shOpping or leisure activity while in uniform. OFF-DUTY DEMEANOR. Off-duty employees. in or out of uniform. other ior engage than not act in public in any manner that brings disrepute or otherwise reflects negatively upon them or on the Of?ce of the Sheriff. Page 7 . NUMBER: 1.05.57 Contra Costa County Of?ce of the Shcn? RELATED ORDERS: - 1.05.33, l.05.58, 1.05.28. Generzi? Policy and Procedure ISSUE DATE: 2-l-2006 CLEARANCE: REVERSION DATE Of?ce of the Sheriff CHAPTER: SUBJECT: Personnel Management and Employee Unbecoming Conduct i Relations 1. POLICY. Al The public has placed its trust in the Of?ce of the Sheriff to administer Ln honest effective law enforcement agency. The Of?ce of the Sheriffembraces the public n. A. UNA CC EPTABLE CONDUCT. I. Is.) 1-. uw?s ?t trust and recognizes that effective law enforcement would be severely hampered if such trust were lost. The Office of the Sheriff also recognizes that this public trust can only be retained through the efforts of all employees. Therefor employees shall conduct themselves in a manner both on duty and off-d will not discredit 0r reflect poorly on the Of?ce ofthe Sheriff. uty that By accepting employment with the Of?ce of the Sheriff, safety and general employees alike are accepting a higher standard of conduct than is t'ound in other government service. We musr be aware that our actions on and ol?fduty are subject to scrutiny and re?ect on the entire Of?ce of the Sheriff. An employee's behavior may be considered unbecoming conduct ifit would normally be viewed with disfavor by the community we The following is a list of unacceptable conduct. Each item may )6 suf?cient grounds for utilization of the Corrective Counseling System or the Personnel Management Regulations. The list is not all inclus other unspecified conduct may also result in action by the Office Sheriff: a Unlawful Conduct: Employees will strictly observe all provisions ofthe law in both their public and private aff will at all times conduct themselves in accordance with mandates. b. Abuse ofAuthority: Employees will not abuse the autho granted them by virtue ofthcir employment, nor take im actions through "color of authority." Page 8 ive and of the airs and ill legal rity proper Karina adios MOIIBA 0333:) C. Rule Violations: Employees will not violate any Conn Of?ce ofthe Sheriff Policies, procedures. orders, dire: regulations. Treatment of Public: Employees will treat all members tyor tives or of the public with respect and courtesy and will refrain from abusive and derogatory conduct and/or profane or in?ammatory language. Insubordinaiion: Failure or deliberate refusal ofan employee to obey a lawful order given by a Supervisor or Manager shall be insubordination. Ridiculing 3 Supervisor or Manager or his/her orders, whether in or out of their presence, is also insubot-dination. Disruption of Operations: Acts or omissions contrary to good order. Misuse of Equipment: Negligent or willful damage to public preperty or waste of public supplies or equipment. Incompetence or Inefficiency: Failure or inability to adequately complete properly assigned tasks or failure to undertake required obligations. Cowardice: Deputies of the Office ofthe Sheriff shall "tot display cowardice or fail to Support other peace officers in the performance of duty. Misuse of Sick Leave: Abuse or excessive use of sick Subversive Organizations: No employee shall knowing become a member of or become connected with any su organization. The Sheriffmay authorize exceptions, wl necessary, for a law enforcement function. Outside Associations: No employee shall knowingly eave. :Iy bversive ten aintain outside associations that jeopardize the security or integrity of the Of?ce of the Sheriff or bring discredit to the law enforcement profession. Personal Relationships: EmpIOyees will not allow their personal relationships to interfere with Of?ce ofthe Sheriff business or the performance of their assigned duties. Additionally, fraternization with persons in custody, arrestees, detainees, criminal defendants or other persons the employee has enforcement contact with, is prohibited. Indebtedness: Employees shall manage their debts in a had an rnanner that will not reflect poorly on their position with the Office of the Sheri Ff. They shall avoid situations where creditors are legal judgments or garnishment oftheir salaries. seeking Other: Any conduct which tends to bring the County or the Office ofthe Sheriff into disrepute. 18 NB: This (?logic-in! compilation oft/re US. Code is current us onan. 4. 2013 (see TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS 1001. Statements or entries generally Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the _urisdiction of the executive, legislative, orjudicial branch ofthe Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully?? falsi?es, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, . fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be lined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or. if the offense involve; international or domestic terrorism (as de?ned in seetion 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, Dr both. lfthe matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 1098, 110, or 117. or section 1591, than the term of imprisorunent imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years. Subsection does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party'l counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding. With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsc :tion shall apply only to? administrative matters. including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement ofproperty or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services. or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be Submitted to the Congress or any of?ce or of?cer within the legislative branch; or (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of null committee, subcommittee, commission or of?ce ofthe Congress, consistent with applicable rule 5 ofthe House or Senate. (June 25, 1943. tilt. 645, 62 Stat. 749: Pub. 103?1322, title ?330016(l)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. ?14?292, 2, Oct. 11, I996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108?458, title VI, ?o703(a), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109?248, title 1, Mlle), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.) Historiceil and Revision Notes Based on title IS. 19-10 ed., ti 80 (Mar. 4. 1909, ch. 321, 35. 35 Stat. [095; Oct. 23, 19l8. ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015; June 18, 1934, ch. 537, 40 Stat. 996: Apr. 4, 1938, ch. 69. 52 Stat. Section 80 of title 13, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was divided into two parts. The provision relating to false claims was incorporated in section 287 ofthis title. Reference to person? .tusing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view ofde?nition of?principal in section 2 oflhis title. Words ?or any corporation in which the United States ol?Amen?ca is stockholder" in said section 80 were omitted as unnecessary in view ot?definition of?agency" in section 6 of this title. In addition to minor changes ofphraseology, the maximum term of imprisonment was changed from 10 to 5 years to be consistent with com parable sections. (Scc reviser's note under section 237 oflhis title.) Amendnients EUUG?Suhsec. Pub. L. 109?243 inserted last sentence in concluding provisions. -1- I PageIO ll. .13 USC 1'00] NB: This unof?cial compilation ofrhe Code is current as anon. 4. 201'? (rue 2004-Subscc Pub. L. 108?458 substituted ?be ?ned under this title. imprisoned not more than 5 rs or. ifthe offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331). imprisoned not more an 8 years, or both" for "be ?ned under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years. or both" in concluding provis ons. 104?292 rccnactcd section catchline without change and generally. Prior to 18x1 road us follows: ?Whocvcr. in any ntallcr within jurisdiction ol'nny or agency ol?the tilted States knowingly and willfully Falsi?cs. conceals or covers up by any trick, or dcvicc a material fact. makes any false, ?ctitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or any false writing or docum nt knowing the sumo to contain any false. ?ctitious or fraudulent statement or entry. shall be tincd undcr this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." 103?322 substituted ?fined under this title" for "?ned not more than 510.000". Change of Name Reference to United States magistrate or to magistratc deemed to refer to United States magistrate judgd pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101?630. set out as a note under section 63! ot?Titlc 28. Judiciary and Judicial Short Tille of 2004 Amendment Pub. L. 101-1?275. 1. July 15. 2004. 113 Stat. 831. provided that: "This Act [enacting section 1028A of this title, amending sections 64: and 1028 or" this title. and enacting provisions listed in a table rcloting to sentencing guidelines set not as a note under section 9.94 oFTitle 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the ?ldlantity Thel?t Penalty Enhancement Act'.? Short Title of 2003 Amendment Pub. L. 108921, title V1. 607(3). Apr. 30. 2003. 117 639. provided that: ?This section [amending section 1023 ofthis title] may be cited as the Authentication Fcaturc and Enhanced Identi?cation Defense Act of 2003' or ID Aot?." 1 Short Title of 2000 Amendment Pub. L. 106?678. 1. Dec. 28. 2000. 114 Stat. 3075. provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1028 ofthis title, repealing section 1738 ofthis title. and enacting provisions set out as notes undcr section 1028 ofthis ttle] may be cited as the False Identi?cation Prevention Act Short Title of 1993 Amendments Pub. L. 105?313.? 1. Oct. 30. 1998. 112 Stat. 300?. provided that: ?This Act [amending sections 932. 102 B. and 2516 ofthis title and section 105 oftlte Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Pub. L. 95 - 521.5ct out in the Appcr dirt to Title 5. Govcounetd Organization and Employccs. and enacting provisions out as notes under section 1023 ofthis title and section 99-1 01"1? :le 23, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure] may be cited as the ?1denlity and Assumption Act of ltms?." Pub. L. :05?172. 1. Apr. 24. 1998. 112 Stat. 53. provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1029 oftliis title and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 994 ol'Titlc 28. Judiciary and Judicial Proccdotc] may be cited it'i the ?Wirelcss Telephone Protection Act?." Short Title of 1996 Amendment Section 1 ot?lPub. L. 10%292 provided that: "This Act [amending this section. sections 1515 and 6003 if this title. and section 1365 ol?Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Proccdurcj may be citcd as tho ?Falsc Statements Acr duntability Act o1" 1996' Short Title of 1994 Amendment Section 390001ta) of Pub. L. 103?322. as amended by Pub. L. ?34?294. title VT. ?604(b)(34). Oct. 11 1996. 110 Stat. 3508. provided that: ?This section [amending section 1030 of this title] may be cited as the ?Computcr Abuse Amendments Act Short Title of 1990 Amendment Pub. L. loos-47, titlc XXV. [[2500 Nov. 29. 1990. 104 Stat. 4359. provided that: ?This title [sec Tablcs for classi?cation} may be citcd as the Thn't?t and Bank Fraud Prosecution and '1'aspayer Recovery Act -3- Pagcll 13 USC 1001 NB: This tmo?icial compilation ofthe US. Code is current as ofJon. 4. {.tec Short Title of 1989 Amendment Pub. L. 101?123. 1. Oct. 23, 1989. 103 Stat. 7359. provided that: ?This Act [amending section 103 repealing section 293 of this title. enacting provisions Set out as notes under sections 293 and 1031 of repealing provisions set out as a note under section 293 ofthis title] may be cited as the ?Major Fraud Act of 1989'." Short Title of 1988 Amendment Pub. L. 1011?700. 13' 1. Nov. 19. 1938. 102 Stat. 4631. provided that: ?This Act [enacting sections 293 am title and section 256 ofTitlc 41. Public Contracts, amending section 2.324 ot'Titic 10. Armed Forces. and ot'Title 31. Money and Finance. enacting provisions set not as notes under sections 293 and 1031 of this 2324 ol'Title 10. and section 5'22 01? Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. and repealing provision note under section 2324 ot"1'ille 10] may be cited as the ?Major Fraud Act of 1988?." Short Title of 1986 Amendment Pub. L. 99?474. 1. Oct. 16. 1986, 100 Stat. 1213, provided that: ?This Act [amending section 1030 oft be cited as the ?Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986?." Short Title of 1984 Amendment Pub. L. 98?473. title 11. 1601. Oct. [2,1984.98 Stat. 2183, provided that: ?This chapter [chapter XVI of title 11 ofPub. L. 98473. enacting section 1029 ofthis title and provisions set out as a note under set this title} may be cited as the ?Credit Card Fraud Act of 1984?.? Pub. L. 93?4?3. title 11. 2101. Oct. 12, 1934. 98 Stat. 2190. provided that: ?This chapter [chapter XXI oftitle II of Pub. L. 98?473. enacting section 1030 ol?this title and provisions set out as a nole under Set this title] may be cited as the 'Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1934?.? Short Title of 1982 Amendment Section 1 of Pub. L. 97?393 provided: ?That this Act [enacting sections 1023 and 1733 of this title at section 3001 ofTitle 39, Postal Service] may be cited as the ?False identi?cation Crime Control Act oil I I l. reprint. Irtmi}. 1? of this title, this title. and lXt'nendments 1031 oFthis section 3730 title. section 5531011135 a 1is title] may 1601?1603) tion 1029 of 2101~2103) tion 1030 of [Cl amending 932'." TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1545. Fraud and misuse of visas. permits, and other documents it 13 USC [546 NB: This uno?ibr?ai compilation ofthe US. Code is current as omei. 4, (see reprint. howl). PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 75 - PASSPORTS AND VISAS Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence ofauthorized stay or employment in the Dr utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, Crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute for entry into or as evidence ofauthorized stay or employment in the United States, kn forged, countert'eited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means ofa or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or Whoever, except under direction of the Attorney General or the Commissioner of the 1m Naturalization Service, or other proper of?cer, knowingly possesses any blanlt permit sells, brings into the United States, or has in his control or possession any plate in the plate designed for the printing of permits, or makes any print, photograph, or impression of any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit or other document required for entry It States, or has in his possession a distinctive paper which has been adopted by the Attom the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the printing of Such or documents; or i Whoever, when applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, or other dOCu for entry into the United States, Or for admission to the United States personates anotl appears in the name ofa deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigt appearing under an ass umed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity, or selli disposes of, or offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, such visa, permit, or other any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or Whoever knhwingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under 5: title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respcc fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the inunigration laws prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, af?davit, Or other do: contains any such false statement or which fails to Contain any reasonable basis in law 0 Shall be lined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (ifthe offense was facilitate an act of international terrorism (as de?ned in section 2331 of this title)), 2C offense was committed to facilitate a drug traf?cking crime (as defined in section 929 10 years (in the case ofthe ?rst or second such offense, if the offense was not committe such an act ofintemational terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the ears offense), or both. Whoever usesm I (1) an identi?cation document, knowing [or having reason to know) that the docn i33ued lawfully for the use of the possessor, (2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the documt (Jr) a false attestatiOn, . for the purpose ofsatisfying a requirement ofsection 274A(h) ofthe [migration and Na shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, nonimmigrant prescribed by United States, Jennit, border er regulation pwing it to be by false claim migration and or engraves, likeness of a in the likeness no the United ey General or Visas, permits, merit required net, or falsely 'ation laws by or otherwise document, to ction 1746 of to a material )r regulations :ument which fact? committed to years (if the ofthis titlc)), to facilitate of any other ment was not ?t is false, or tionality Act, intelligence rate, or of an Etnized Crline activity ot?a law enforcement agency ofthc United States, a State, or a subdivision oft: intelligence agency ofthc United States, or any activity anthon'zed under title ofthe Org Pagcl3 1'8 USC I546 NB: Hits unujjic'iol compilation ofi?he Code is current (is anan. 4, 2012 (see limil'}. Control Act of1970 (18 U.S.C. note prec. 3481).l For purposes oftbis section, the term ?State" means a State of the United States, the District oFColumbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession ofthc United States. . Footnotes I See References in Text note below. (June 25, 1948, lch. 645, 62 Stat. 771; June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title W, ?402(a), 66 Stat. 275 Pub. L. 94?550, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2535; Pub. L. 99?603, title 1, 103(21), Nov. 6, 1.986, 100 Stat. 3380; Pub. L- 100?525, Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2610; Pub. L. 101-647, title ?3550, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat- 4926; Pub. L. 103?322, title X111, 130009(a)(4), (5), title 330011(p), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2030, 2145; Pub. L. 104408, div. C, title 11, 21 214, Sept. 30 1996, 110 Stat. 3009?569, 3009?572; Pub. L. 104?294, title V1, 6070b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3512; Pub. L. 1074.73, div. B, title 1V, ?4002(a)(3), Nov. 2,2002, 116 Stat. 1806.) Historical and Revision Notes 1 Based on section 220 oftitie 8, U.S.C., 1940 ed, Aliens and Nationality {May 26, [924, ch. 190, 22.41 Stat. 165). Words ?upon conviction thereof" were omitted as surplusage since punishment can be imposed only after at conviction. Fine of$10,000 was reduced to $2,000 to conform with Sections embracing o??ences ofcornparable gravity. Minor changes were made in phraseology. References in Text The immigration laws, referred to in subsec. are classi?ed generally to Title 8, Aliens and National ty. See also section 1101 7) ot?Title 8. Section 274A(b] or? the [migration and Nationality Act, referred to in subsee. is classi?ed to section 1324s 01' Title 3. Title of ttie Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. is title of Pub. L. 91?452, Oct. 1970, 84 Stat. 933, hieh was set out as a note preceding section 3481 ofthis title, and was repealed by Pub L. 98?473, title 11, 120901). 0 I 13. 1984. 98 Stat. 2163. See section 3321 el seq. of this title. Amendments I ZUUI?Subsec. Pub. L. 107?273 substituted "to fricilitnte? for "to facility" in concluding par. l996?Subsec. Pub. L. [04?208 substituted "which contains any such false statement or which Fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact" for ?containing any such false statement" in t'ourth par. and "imprison :d not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act oi'internationnl terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ot'this titch}. 20 years (it' the offense was committed to facilitate a drug traf?cking Crime (as de?ned in section 929 of this titlej), to yours [in the case of the ?rst or second such ot't?ense. it? the offense was not committed to facility Such an act of international terrorism or a drug traf?cking crime). or 15 years (in the case ot'uny other offense)" I?or ?imprisoned not more than 10 years? in concluding par. Suhsee. Pub. L. Ina?2 94 inserted at end "For purposes ofthis section, the term ?Statc? means a State 0 t?the United States, the District oi I. and any commonwealth, territory. or possession ot'the United States." l994?~Subsec. Pub. L. 103-322, 33001 lip), amended directory language ofPub. L. 101-64 7. 355i). See 1990 Amendment note below. Pub. L. 103?622, substituted 0 years" for ??ve years" in concluding par. Subsec. (13). Pub. L. 103?322, 1]0009(al(5], in concluding provisions. substituted "under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years" for "in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than two years". I990?Subsee. Pub. L. 101?647, 3550. as amended by Pub. L. 103?322. :51 33001 ltp]. substituted "Shall be ?ned under this title? for ?Shall be ?ned in accordance with this title? in concluding par. 1988?~Pub. [:100?525 amended Pub. L. 99?603. See 1986 Amendment note below. . 99?605. as amended by Pub. L. 100?525, substituted ?other documents" For ?other entry cocuments? in section catchline. designated existing provisions as snbsee. substituted "permit, border crossing card. alien -3- Page 14 NB: This uno?iciai com,- triun ofthe US. Code is current as ufJan, 20.12 (sec lit} 13 {15(?1546 reprint. htmi). registration receipt ml. Or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States? for ?or other document required for entry into the United States? and for ?or document" in first part. substituted ?in accordance with this title" for ?not more than $2.000? pan, and added subsets. and lW??Pub. L. 94-450 inserted or as permitted under penalty ofperjury under section 1746 ol?tille 28, knowingly subscribes as true," after ?Whoever knowingly makes under oath" in fourth par. 1952?Act June 27, I952. made section applicable to entry documents other than visas and permits. Effective Date of 1996 Amendment Amendment by section 211(c)(2) of Pub. L. 104-4108 applicable with respect to offenses occurring on 30. 1996. see section 2i llc) ofPub. L. 104?208. set oul as a note under section 1028 of this title. Effective Date of 1994 Amendment Section 33001 Hp) of Pub. L. 103~322 provided that the amendment made by that section is effective! on which section 3550 of Pub. L. 101-64? took effect. Effectivle Date of 1988 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 100?525 effective as ifineluded in enactment of Reform and C4 [936, Pub. L. 994103. See section 3(5) ol'F?ub. L. 100?525, set out as a note under sccrion llOl ofT and Nationality. Transfer of Functions Functions vested by law in Attorney General. Department of Justice, or any other of?cer or any ag concluding United States or after Sept 5 of the date intro! Act of tle 8, Aliens ency of that Department, with respect to the inspection at regular inspection locations at ports ofentry ofpersons. and documents of persons, entering or leaving the United States, were to have been transferred to Secretary of the Tree Reorg. Plan FR. 5932, 87 Stat. [091. set out in the Appendix to Title 5. Organization and Employees. The transfer was negated by ecction of Pub. L. 93 ?2:33, Mar. Stat. 50, which repealed section 2 of 1973 Reurg. Plan No. 2, eff. July I, 1973. Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Fun For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions. and treatment ofrelated re note set out under section l55l of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. .lrury by 1973 Government 16, 1974. RB c?ons ferences, see 'i 23 USC [746 This uno?ibiai compilation aftiie US. Code is current as ofJan. 4. 2W2 {see it. 0 TITLE 28 - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART - PROCEDURE CHAPTER 115 - DOCUMENTARY 51746. declarations under penalty of perjury Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, reguiation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, I or proved by the sworn declaration, veri?cation, certi?cate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the some (other than a deposition, or an oath of of?ce, or an ath required to be taken before a specified of?cial other than a notary public), such matter may, i. ith like force and effect, he supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaratio certi?cate, veri?cation, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, 5 true under penalty of perj ury, and dated, in substantially the following form: i l) Ifexecutcd without the United States: declare (or certify, verify, or state) under pe by of perjury under the laws ofthc United States ofAmerica that the foregoing is true and correct. Exec 4th on (date). (Signature)?i. . i (2) It'eseeuted within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: declare (or certify, veri?r, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed on (date). (Signature?. (Added Pub. L. 94?550, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534.) Prior Prcivisloris A prior scolion [745 was renumbered section U45 ofthis title. RUSC {325 NB: This nno?iria! compiiation ofthe Code is can-em as ofJim. 4, 3012 {see TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY SUBCHAPTER Il - IMMIGRATION Part - General Penalty Provisions 1325. improper entry by alien time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (I) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration of?cers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration of?cers, or attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a will?illy false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission ot? any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be lined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other man as designated by [migration of?cers shall be subject to a civil penalty of? at least $50 and not more than $250 for each Such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or ?ned not more than $250,000, or both. Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than. 5 years, lined in accordance with title 18, or both. (June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 3, ?275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99~639, Nov. 10, ?986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. Nil?649, title 121(b)(3), title V, NOV. 29, 1990. 104 3tat.i4994, 5059; Pill). L. [02?232, title ill, 306(c)(3), Dec. 12, [991, 105 Stat. l752; Pub. L. 104?203, div. C3, [1th l, 105(3), Sept. 30, 1996, 1 l0 Stat. 3009?550.) . . Amendments I l996?-?Subsecs. to Pub. L. 104408 added subsee. and redesignated former subsees. and (cl as and respectively. lQQl?Subsee. Pub. L. 102-232 substituted ?lined under title 13? for ??ned not more than $2,000 (or itgreater, the amount provided under title 990?~?Subsee. Pub. L. [01?649. 543(bit2?t. inserted "or attempts to enter" alter enters" and to enter or" after "or and substituted ?shall. For the ?rst commission ul?any such offense, be lined notpnore than $3.000 (or. if greater amount provided uruler title 13) or imprisoned not more than a months. or both. and. for a Subsequent commi-- on of any such offense. be ?ned under title 13. or imprisoned not more than 2 years" for 8 USC1325 NB: This unof?ciaf compilation oftiie US. Code is current as ofJun. J, 20!) (see Irtipgi?i?wwau ?shall, for the ?rst commission of any such offenses. be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon convicti 1n thereof be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months. or by a fine of not more than $300. or by both, and for a subsequent commission ofatly such offenses shall be guilty ofa felony and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a line of not more than $1.000". Subsec. Pub. L. till?649, added subsee. Wink?Pub. L. 99?639 designated existing provisions as subsec. and added subsec. Effective Date of 1996 Amendment I Section lOSfb) of div. of Pub. L. provided that: "The amendments made by subsection [mending this section] shall apply to illegal entries or attempts to enter occurring on or after the first day ofthc sixth mo uh beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act [Sch 30, Effective Date of 1991 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 102?232 effective as if included in the enactment of the Immigration Act of 990, Pub. L. till?649, see section 310(1) ufPub. L. 102?332. set out as a note under section it)! ofthis title. Effective Date of 1990 Amendment Amendment by section 12 1 (130(3) ofPub. L. I0 [-649 effective Oct. l, [991, and applicable beginning with ?scal year I992, see section l?lfa) of Pub. L. set out as a note Hill of this title. Amendment by section S43(b)(2) of Pub. L. 101-649 applicable to actions taken after Nov. 29, 199d, see section 5430:) ot'Pub. L. 1014549. set out as a note under section [22! ufthis title. Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions. and treatment ofrelated l't: fcrences, see note set out under section ISSI of this title. . . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY . NOTICE OF PROPOSED ACTION (SKELLY NOTICE) Section 1108.1: Person el Management Regulation Administrative Bulletin416: Project Positions Applicable Memorandum of Understanding TO: NAME StevI C. CHO CLASSIFICATION De Duty Sheriff ADDRESS DEPARTMENT Sheriff?s Under Part ll Section 1108 1 of the CoLInty Personnel Management Regulations Administrative Bulletin 415 and the applicable Memorandum of Understanding (if any) before taking action to dismiss suspend or demote an employee the appointing authority must give a notice of proposed action This notice is to inform you of the department's proposal to take the following action: I - . (1) Terminate your employm?ent, effective September 8, 2014. (2) The following constitutes the charges or grounds for this action: See the attached "Attachment to Notice of Proposed Action (Skelly Notice) Steve 0. Che, Deputy Sheriff. (Charges should be completely expressed. if more space is needed. add supplemental slI (3) Attached is copy of regulations on which this action is based. (4) All written materiais, reports and documents upon which this action is based are ava your review. sets.) I Iable for (5) You have the righ to respond to this notice either orally or in writing (or both) to the I indersigned, within seven (7) calendar days of the issuance of this notice. Any response you made will be considered prior to taking final action. The appointing authority may extend the response period for good cause. If you have. been suspepded due to pending criminal charges disciplinary action dispOsition Of the arg'.taken after Augu t2612014 . . Dae Aippomting Authority NOTE: if the employee is being placed on A copy of the foregoin notice was by me temporary leave of absence with pay. complete I personally served/sent by certified mail and attach supplemental form AK183. on thiszj day of _August 2014 NAME: jitlia SIGNATURE: I . Page 1 of 22 . WHITE Employee?s Copy ARY- Employee Relation? 3 Copy PINK - Department'sC py AK 162 (8182) PM Is. (gay) NUMBER: 1.05.60 tontra @6313 County Qf?ce of the She?? Recline ORDERS: 1.05.56. Gexieral Policy and Procedure . 45 ISSUE DATE: 3.006 CLEARANCE: REVISION DATE: 11-12-2013 Of?ce of the 51.1er CHAPTER: SUBJECT: . Personnel Management and Employee Employee Personal Restrainin Orderfl?emporary .u Relations Restraining Order or Involvement in an Arrest or i Criminal Investigation I. POLICY. A. Employees who have a personal involvement in an on-duty or off-duty arrest or criminal investigation shall immediately advise their supervisor and discontinue any official role in the investigation or arrest; except in exi gent circumstances. II. GENERAL. A. INVOLVEMENT. A Deputy has personal involvement in a criminal investigation if the Deputy. a relative or friend. is the victim or suSpect of the criminal activity being investigattid. 1. A Deputy having such personal involvement shall not become involved . in a criminal investigation that does not arise out of the Deputy's normal duty assignment unless directed or authorized to do so by the Deputy's Supervisor upon full disclosure of the Deputy?s personal involvement. Nothing in this Policy is intended to prevent any Deputy from investigating a crime in which the Deputy is personally involved. on duty or off duty. when exigent circumstances threaten the loss of evidence, the loss of witnesses, or the escape of the suspect, or when there is a i possibility of serious injury to the Deputy or others. When suc 1 exigent Circumstances cease. so shall the Deputy's efforts to further in vesti gate the crime. .1 . Any employee observing suspected criminal conduct by anothe- employee of the Of?ce of the Sheriff, whether it occurs on duty or off - duty. shall immediately report the incident to his or her imme 'ate supervisor. Any employee receiving or developing information that any employee of the Office of the Sheriff is a suspect in any criminal activity shall immediately notify his or her immediate supervisor. Any employee. sworn or general. who is arrested for any offense, on duty or off duty. other than a traffic infraction. or who becomes aWEre that he or she is the focus of a criminal investigation. other than as a victim or witness. shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander. Any communication with outside agencies relating to an employee of the Office of the Sheriff, who is the subject of that agency?s investigation. shall be conducted at the Lieutenant level or above. If an Of?ce ofthe Sheriff employee who is traveling on official business is the subject of a criminal investigation or is seriously injured or incapacitated, the supervising Lieutenant shall discontinue the employee's involvement in the training or meeting, and arrange for the employee to return as soon as practical. giving consideration t3 the needs of the investigating agency and the health status of the employee. EMPLOYEE PERSONAL RESTRAINING ORDER OR OTHER LEGAL IM PEDIMENT. 1. Any sworn employee who is served with a restraining order that restricts him or her from possessing a ?rearm. or who is the subject of any other restriction that would impede his or her ability to function as an armed peace of?cer shall immediately notify his or her Division Commander. Contest. Unless, within seven (7) days of the receipt of the notice, the appointing authority acknowledges that the resignation could have been believed to be coerced, this question shall be handled as an appeal to the Merit Board. Disposition. Upon appeal, the Merit Board shall determine whether the resignation was coerced and, if not, the resignation shall stand. if coerced, the resignation shall be deemed revoked and the employee retumed to duty effective on the day following the decision of the Merit Board, but without loss of seniority or pay, 3 bject to the employee's duty to mitigate damages. 1103. TENURE rEiiND DISMISSAL. SUSPENSION AND REDUCTION. tenure of every of?cer or employee holding permanent status in a position in the merit sy stern shall be during good behavior, and the rendering of efficient service, but any su officer or employee may be dismissed, suSpended or reduced in rank or compensation for cause. i 1104. ?i?he appointing authority may dismiss, suspend or demote employee for cause. The following are sufficient causes for such action; the list is in 'cative rather than inclusive of restrictions and dismissal, suspension or demotion may be based on reasons other than those speci?cally mentioned: 1 absence without leave, conviction of any criminal act involving moral turpitude, conduct tending to bring the merit system into disrepute, (cl) disorderly or immoral conduct, I incompetence or inef?ciency, insubordination, being at work under the in?uence of liquor or dmgs, carrying onto the premises liquor or drugs or consuming or using liquor or drugs during work hcurs and/or on County premises, neglect of duty, negligent or willful damage to public property or waste of public supplies or equipment, 0) violation of any law?il or reasonable regulation or order given by a supervisor or department head, (it) willful violation of any of the provisions of the Merit System Ordinance or Personnel Management Regulations, (1) material and intentional misrepresentation or concealment of any fact in connection with obtaining employment, - misappropriation of County funds or property, unreasonable failure or refusal to undergo any physical, medical and/or exam and/or treatment authorized by these regulations, (0) dishonesty or theft, excessive or unexcused absenteeism and/or tardiness, PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Page 54 ea Page 21 sexual harassment including but not limited to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, when such conduct has the purpose or effect of affecting employment decisions concerning an individual, or unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance, or creating an intimidating or hostile working envirom?nent. (Amended 09/25/84) 1104.18uspension. Notwithstanding Section 1104, management and professional employees may not be suSpended for a period of less than one 1) week. (Added 11/17/92) . - Paae 55 Page HE SHERIFF Contra Costa County Field Operations Bureau Patrol Division Muir Station 1980 Muir Road Martinez. CA. 94553 (925) 313-2500 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Dethy Steve Cho (7113415quipment On March 11. 2d14. Assistant Sheriff Williams placed Deputy Cho on Administri collected the following items from Deputy Cho prior to him leaving Danville PD: A. Michael March 12. 2014 i Captain Steve Simpkins, Danville PD Chief Lieutenant Allan Shields. Danville PD Administrative Lieutenant Sig Sauer. P229. serial number- with 3 magazines. and ammunition Ll. INGSTON Sheriff-Cloroner VI, Casten Undersheriff 03 Etive Leave. 27 rounds of Duty Belt consisting of duty weapon holster. magazine case. two handcuff cases case with 2 pairs handcuffs, expandable baton and holder. radii flashlight holder ke holder. and Taser Holster Vest. asai Department issued Identification card Taser (X00 ?639733 Holster. and Tasercartridge- 4 County issued keys FOB electronic key LI 3 case. small Danville PD badge Danville PD electronic key card Danville PD issued Mag Light Danwlle PD issued Motorola APX 7000 Radio Danville PD issued Taser Camera Danville PD issued Camera. Canon Powershot A470 Danville PD uniforms (one long sleeve one short sleeve and one pa Danville PD foul weather jacket (Medium?Regular) Two Danville PD ball caps Deputy Cho stated his County issued badge was at his home in Pleasant Hill. cleared out his locker. drop folder. and cabinet in the report writing room at Dan personal belongings. ii; i of pants) Deputy Cho ville PD of all