By: Ala Abuhara, Patrick Aguilar, Juwairia Shoaib
SAN FRANCISCO — During a preliminary hearing on Monday, July 28, 2025, in San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Simon J. Frankel determined there was enough evidence to move forward in the case of a man facing felony charges for possession for sale of a controlled substance, despite Deputy Public Defender Zachary Waterman’s argument that there did not seem to be probable cause to arrest or search the accused.
The arrest stemmed from a Feb. 7, 2024, buy-bust operation conducted by officers in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood. Throughout the hearing, police officers offered differing accounts regarding their roles in the operation, language limitations, and the specific actions taken during and after the alleged drug transaction.
The accused appeared out of custody and required the assistance of a Spanish interpreter during the hearing. The prosecution was handled by Anthony Orozco, a current law student at UC Law San Francisco, appearing under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Dennis Guzman. Deputy Public Defender Zachary Waterman represented the accused.
The buy-bust police operation involved three roles: a buy officer, close surveillance officers, and an arrest team. San Francisco Police Officer Francesca Murphy was identified as the undercover officer who allegedly purchased the controlled substance from the accused. San Francisco Police Officer James Puccinelli acted as one of the close officers, stationed nearby to monitor the operation and coordinate safety. Officer John Murphy, part of the arrest team, detained the accused shortly after the alleged transaction.
Officer Puccinelli testified first, explaining to the court that he is an SFPD officer who played the observing role in the buy-bust operation, and he gave the order to move in and arrest the accused.
He stated earlier in the testimony that there had been a hand signal that had been set up, which the undercover officer purchasing the drugs knew, to signal to the plainclothes officers that the deal had been done and to move in. Officer Puccinelli said that he saw this signal and was the one who gave the order to move in.
Officer Puccinelli told the court he was not the arresting officer and had no part in the writing of the police report that came from this operation. He explained later in court that this is because the report writing was not in his training.
Officer Puccinelli testified that he was positioned 25 to 35 feet from the scene of the incident. He described observing an individual he identified as “a man with a black and white striped beanie, dark jacket, and lanyard” who conversed with the undercover officer for the alleged transaction. Officer Puccinelli stated that he did not directly speak with the accused, had no previous interaction with him, does not speak Spanish, and did not author the police report. He explained that his role was to observe the area and alert the arrest team after the undercover officer gave a prearranged signal.
Officer Puccinelli testified that he observed a signal from Officer Francesca Murphy and relayed that information to the arrest team. During cross-examination, DPD Waterman questioned the assumptions used to identify sellers in that area. When DPD Waterman asked if the officer agreed there were people in the neighborhood buying drugs rather than selling them, the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection. DPD Waterman rephrased the question, and Judge Frankel clarified by rephrasing the question himself, asking Officer Puccinelli, “There are people in the area without the intention to purchase but just to use?” Puccinelli responded, “Yes, I’d say yes.”
The second testimony was given by Officer John Murphy. His role in the operation was in the arresting team, and he wrote the police report. Officer Murphy testified that he is not the person who saw the sign; he is just the one who responded to Officer Puccinelli’s order to move in and followed his instructions. When questioned about why the buy-bust operation was occurring in that area, he described the Tenderloin area where the incident occurred as “an open-air drug market.”
Officer Murphy could determine that the controlled substance was methamphetamine based on his experience in the Drug Identification course that he had taken at the police academy. He explained that the controlled substance has a structure similar to that of rock salt.
Following this, Officer John Murphy presented physical evidence submitted by law student Orozco, showing the court two baggies allegedly containing methamphetamine. One weighed 2.9 grams and was reportedly purchased by Officer Francesca Murphy during the operation, and another, with 17 grams, was recovered during the search of the accused. Under questioning, Murphy confirmed that the reported weights included the plastic baggies that contained the substances. The undercover officer had bought using two marked $20 bills that they used as the funding for the operation. He also verified some photographs of the bills submitted by the prosecution that have been used as evidence.
The felony charge is the only charge that this accused has had.
The accused’s case will come back for an arraignment on Aug. 11 in Department 22 for the accused to plead guilty or innocent.
