S.D. Officer Probed Over Allegation of Perjury

The San Diego Police Department has launched a criminal investigation to determine whether an internal affairs sergeant lied during testimony before the city Civil Service Commission.

The probe stems from statements last week by commission members that Sgt. Ed Petrick was “prejudiced” and “appeared to have perjured himself under oath” during his testimony in a recent case involving the dismissal of a police officer.

“That is a serious charge,” Asst. Police Chief Bob Burgreen said Thursday. “It casts a lot of doubt on his credibility. . . . We have contacted the district attorney’s office and will submit the entire matter to them for their review.”

Petrick said Thursday that he was unaware of the investigation and would have no comment. In an earlier interview, he denied the accusations and called the charges “a lot of smoke-screening” by attorneys trying to get an officer’s job back.

Exonerated in Earlier Probe

An earlier police review of Petrick’s testimony revealed that the sergeant did not lie and did not make any major mistakes, Burgreen said. Petrick, an 18-year police veteran, recently was assigned to the homicide unit and will continue to investigate murder cases during the probe.

Petrick’s investigation last year of an excessive force complaint against Officer John Halsey was riddled with “inaccuracies, misrepresentations and pertinent omissions which detracted from the overall credibility, reliability and impartiality of the investigation,” the Civil Service Commission concluded.

Despite these findings, the commission voted, 2-1, to uphold Halsey’s firing on charges that he struck two black men with a flashlight on July 29 near a tavern in the 4200 block of Martin Luther King Way.

In his dissenting opinion, Commissioner Stanley E. Willis II said he believed that Halsey should be suspended, not fired. He emphasized that the police investigation was flawed by “misquotes, inaccuracies, errors and . . . techniques” that appeared to be used to fire Halsey “even at the cost of the truth.”

Willis wrote that Petrick “appeared to have perjured himself under oath and . . . made insinuations and innuendoes (sic) concerning Halsey which were not related to the facts of this case and which bordered on defamation.”

Willis, who could not be reached for comment, apparently was referring to attempts by Petrick during the investigation to learn about Halsey’s sexual preference. According to Civil Service Commission transcripts, Petrick testified that he asked Halsey’s former partner if the officer was gay after discovering that Halsey was living with a 16-year-old Explorer Scout and hearing anonymous remarks that Halsey “had never been seen associating with any females.”

Petrick testified that he had discussed Halsey’s sexual preference with Cmdr. Calvin Krosch, head of the police internal affairs unit. But Krosch said Thursday that he could not recall being briefed about the matter.

Krosch, who was directed last month by Burgreen to review the Halsey investigation, said he determined there was no evidence that Petrick had committed perjury or made any attempt to mislead anyone.

$20-Million Claim Filed

“We satisfied ourselves after the allegation that it was frivolous,” Burgreen said. “Now that the allegation has been made openly and publicly, we’re going to go back and turn over every rock and talk to every person in detail. We’re going to handle it like we would any allegation of a crime.”

Police will interview Civil Service commissioners and witnesses who appeared before the commission, Burgreen said.

On Wednesday San Diego attorney Everitt Bobbitt filed a $20-million claim with the city alleging that the Police Department wrongly fired Halsey and that Petrick committed slander by accusing Halsey of being a homosexual.

Halsey, 36, could not be reached Thursday for comment. But, during a recent interview, he said he was not gay and called the police investigation “character assassination.”

“It’s mud-raking of the worst degree,” Halsey said. “To me, it is unbelievable that they could pull that and think they could get away with it. . . . Naturally, you want to get ahold of this guy and rip his head off. It hurts very deeply. . . . How many other officers did he discuss it with?”

Halsey worked in the Southeastern Division for five years before he was fired on Jan. 28 after a police investigation by Petrick and Sgt. Barbara Harrison found that the officer used excessive force.

Halsey claimed that he asked a group of people who had gathered in front of a Southeast San Diego bar late at night to clear the area. Two men challenged him to a fight and he struck them in self-defense, Halsey said.

The commission found that Halsey used “excessive and unnecessary force” by striking the two men in the head with his flashlight when there were no serious threats or danger to anyone.

Bias Cited

But the commission also criticized Petrick and Harrison for their “flawed” investigation. It concluded that Petrick was “negatively influenced and prejudiced” by his past dealings with Halsey and “should have recused himself from investigating any aspect of this complaint.”

In his dissent, Willis wrote, “Unfortunately, much of the testimony of the two internal affairs officers conducting the investigation of this complaint was flawed by misquotes, inaccuracies, errors, omissions and by techniques which appear to be calculated to get the testimony that fit the preconception of the interviewers even at the cost of the truth. This seriously flawed the investigation.”

The investigators collected statements from witnesses that three officers used force that night, but only included Halsey’s name on their reports, Bobbitt said. The investigators neglected to include the victim’s statement that he was never struck by a flashlight, according to Bobbitt.

Petrick also was biased and may have lied during his testimony, Willis wrote in his dissent.

“(Petrick) appeared to have perjured himself under oath and seemed to have harbored a pre-existing negative bias about (Halsey),” Willis wrote.

Officer Dawn Summers, who worked as Halsey’s partner for three months, testified that Petrick told her on several occasions that he didn’t like Halsey and warned her that she shouldn’t work with him, according to transcripts obtained by The Times.

Summers testified that she is a close friend of Petrick’s wife, Michelle, a detective assigned to the San Diego police narcotics task force. Summers said that Ed Petrick picked her up at the airport last summer and asked her a series of questions about Halsey during the ride home.

“He wanted to know if John Halsey was gay,” Summers testified. “ . . . He asked me why the Explorer Scout was living with John Halsey, and I told him John was a big brother to (the Explorer Scout) because he had family problems . . .

“Then he said that he thought John was gay, and I said that I

didn’t think he was and I have known him long enough to know that that’s not the type of life style that he leads,” Summers testified.

When asked if Petrick expressed any other opinions about Halsey, Summers replied: “He told me that John was a heavy-handed cop that needed to be removed from the Police Department.”

Backed by Burgreen

Petrick testified on April 20 that he did not discuss the Halsey case with Summers during the ride from the airport. He said: “Dawn asked me about this specific investigation and I told her we couldn’t discuss the investigation.”

A week later, Petrick acknowledged during testimony that he had asked Summers about Petrick’s sexual preference, but denied ever mentioning the excessive force allegation.

Burgreen said he believes that Summers’ testimony “may not have been entirely accurate. It’s clear to me the commission believed Summers and not Petrick. For the record, I believe Petrick. If the investigation shows I have to change my mind, I will.”

Burgreen conceded, however, that Petrick was out of line when he discussed the investigation with Summers and should not have talked about Halsey’s sexual preference.

“We are satisfied that, although Petrick had done some things that he wished he had not done, they were not major mistakes,” Burgreen said. “Sexual preference was never part of the investigation. It was never intended to be. He shouldn’t have done it.”