He's back! - Page 2

Police say it was a mistake to have notorious Officer Bertrand recently back on the beat busting nightclubs

SFPD Officer Larry Bertrand outside Sloan nightclub on June 17.

To many in the nightlife community, Bertrand represents the antithesis of that approach. Mist owner Mike Quan, a plaintiff in the ongoing federal lawsuit alleging Bertrand repeatedly harassed him and his customers, said he was shocked to hear Bertrand showed up at his club and was abrasive with his employees again. "My attorney sent [SFPD] a letter the next day saying this is not acceptable," Quan told us. "Hopefully they got the message."

Mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty, who is close to the nightlife community, helped reach out to Suhr after the incident and said he believes it was an aberration. "This is something that is a concern and the leadership needs to be sure that we're not falling back," Dufty told us.

Appeals also went out to the City Attorney's Office, headed by another mayoral candidate, Dennis Herrera, who said he was happy to hear this was an isolated incident. But he said it illustrates something he's been saying in meetings with clubs and cops — that SFPD's nightlife enforcement policies need to be clear and consistent.

"We need to get it above the ad hoc way we've done it, so that it's above the captain level and coming from the command staff," Herrera told us.

Suhr, who has better relations with the nightlife community than any of his recent predecessors, also emphasized the need to lay out clear expectations. But he stopped short of saying there wouldn't be anymore undercover raids of clubs and parties, telling us, "I think it's important that people think that's a possibility."


Raids for what? What exactly is it they think people are doing in there, operating drug-smuggling tunnels that lead directly to Juarez?
99.9% of people are just dancing, getting shetfaced, and sloppily hitting on other patrons, none of which is illegal (yet). Most bouncers enjoy their work, maybe even a little too much, and do a pretty good job of making sure trouble gets taken care of promptly.
The cops would do a lot more good patrolling outside and around clubs and nabbing the rash of petty crooks breaking into cars.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 11:52 am

If this is how he behaves first chance he gets when he's loosed on the clubs for ONE NIGHT... after all the lawsuits and bullshit he's already called down, what kind of nutcase is he???

How do you think this guy behaves the rest of the time? Even if he's not abusing people at night clubs, who else will he be abusing? Do you REALLY want to deal with this out of control jerk pulling you over for an ordinary traffic stop?? He's got to be a nightmare wherever he goes, they should keep him chained to a desk like a rabid dog or get rid of him entirely.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

So, i guess Suhr and the entertainment commission havent walked down 11th street on a friday or saturday night? its a lovely nightime hotspot, if you could survive without getting stabbed, stomped or shot.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

On that street every Friday and Saturday night, hardly as dangerous as you make it out to be.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 15, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

I don't go out much any more, but I love the clubs in the area.

Just don't bring a car, you'll get your windows smashed in which the SFPD does NOTHING about except file your police report into the abyss of bureaucracy. (I've had it happen 4 times in 3 years)

Hey dummies, you're doing it wrong. The problem is outside the clubs down the street, not inside the club. I know, I'd rather be inside the club than outside too, but it's not my job to keep the public safe from harm or theft.

I think the club owners should pool their money to hire security OUTSIDE (vigilantes), make arrests, and then bill the city for services that the police aren't providing.

There, now the public outside and club goers inside are safe. Problem solved.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Vigilance Committee is the historic response to gov't corruption in SF. Just sayin'

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

First of all, shame on Sloan for reporting that they got "shut down" by not only SFPD, but Bertrand. How about they report the truth and admit they got shut down my SF Fire?? Yup, that's right...they were naughty and did some illegal things that SF Fire wasn't too happy with, so they shut them down.

As for Mist, Mike Quan needs to get off his high horse and stop running to his little good-for-nothing attorney, Mark Rennie. Rennie likes to jump om like a knight in shining armour, but what really does he do?? He sends a letter about Bertrand's presence being unacceptable? Really? I think Mike Quan needs to keep in mind that the police are permitted to do walk-throughs at any time. I worked with Bertrand that night and not once did he interact with the staff except to advise them that we were walking through. Are Mike Quan & his staff so cocky in their position that they can now start being dishonest about things and start making things up, just to look like the victim? They've played the victim long enough. Neighbors near and far can all attest to Mist being a problem and in the past and in the present. It's only a matter of time before something serious happens. And I hope Mike Quan is responsible.

Posted by Get it right on Jul. 04, 2011 @ 4:29 pm

My understanding is that Sloan had completed everything the Fire Department asked for and was supposed to get its final permit sign-off that day but that it got delayed, and by then it was too late to hire Firewatch again, as they had been doing on previous nights. And while it was the FD's call, I was told it was Bertrand who called in the FD after doing a permit check on the business.
If you were really Bertrand's partner that night, perhaps you could verify or dispute that version of events and identify yourself for our readers. I'm also a little troubled by your characterization of Rennie and Quan (and your hopes that Quan is responsible for "something serious" happening), which seems to support the view that many cops are hostile to nightlife in this town. Is it really appropriate for you to exhibit such animus toward these two individuals?

Posted by steven on Jul. 05, 2011 @ 11:30 am

To Get It Right: At least when Jim Dudley does surreptitious PR for the Department he does it in a smart and calculating way-- You should leave the right wing propaganda to the experts. Quit blaming the SFFD for MadDog Bertrand's actions that night. According to the Sloan manager the SF Fire officer told him that night that "your place looks fine but we have this cop riding us to shut you down. Sorry".

The new Chief, Greg Suhr, and Commander Corriea must really drive the old hardliners crazy. They actually understand the importance of the "other 9 to 5" to the economy of San Francisco, and are out to build upon the spirit of cooperation between nightlife and the SFPD started by Chief Gascon. "Public servants" like Get it Right and Larry Bertrand are a blight upon the great San Francisco Police Department. As for that "good-for-nothing attorney Rennie" and Mike Quan they played a big part in taking Bertrand off the street-- twice. Thank you Mike Quan and Mark Rennie for a job well done.

Posted by Tommy Gunn on Jul. 06, 2011 @ 12:28 pm

Also from this author