Insufficient Evidence : Probe by D.A. Clears Police Sergeant of Perjury

A district attorney’s investigation has found no proof that a San Diego police internal affairs sergeant lied during sworn testimony in a city Civil Service Commission hearing.

Sgt. Ed Petrick had been accused of perjuring himself in April in an attempt to get Officer John Halsey fired on an allegation of excessive force. Although Halsey’s firing was upheld, Commissioner Stanley E. Willis II wrote in a dissenting opinion that he believed Petrick was prejudiced and “appeared to have perjured himself under oath” in his zeal to get Halsey kicked off the department.

In a letter written to Police Chief Bill Kolender this week, Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller wrote, “It is our opinion and conclusion . . . that there is insufficient evidence to support the original allegation. A charge of perjury requires proof that a witness knowingly and willfully testified falsely as to a material fact. We find such proof lacking in this case.”

Denied Accusations

Petrick was on vacation and could not be reached for comment. At the time of the investigation, he denied the accusations and called the charges “a lot of smoke-screening” by attorneys trying to get an officer’s job back.

The district attorney’s investigation did not address the larger issue of whether Petrick’s conduct during the investigation was appropriate. It left that matter for the department to decide.

Capt. Jim Malloy, a police spokesman, said that Petrick will not face any administrative action and will continue to work as head of one of five homicide units.

“The letter from the district attorney’s office cleared him of any perjury,” Malloy said. “As far as we’re concerned he didn’t do anything improper.”

Commission’s Conclusions

Petrick’s investigation of Halsey last year 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 in its opinion.

It also criticized Petrick and his partner, Sgt. Barbara Harrison, for their “flawed” investigation. The commission went on to conclude 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.”

The perjury allegation surfaced when Officer Dawn Summers testified during Halsey’s hearing that Petrick had asked her a series of questions about Halsey during a ride home from Lindberg Field. Summers, who was a former partner of Halsey’s, said that Petrick asked her if Halsey was gay. She also testified that Petrick told her that Halsey was “a heavy-handed cop who needed to be fired.”

But Petrick denied ever discussing the Halsey case with Summers. He said that Summers asked him about the investigation and he refused to talk about it. Later, Petrick changed his testimony to say that he had asked Summers about Halsey’s sexual preference but denied ever mentioning the excessive force allegation.

Aware of Discrepancies

“We are cognizant of discrepancies in the testimony of Sgt. Petrick and Officer Summers, but these, without more, do not provide a basis for criminal liability,” Miller wrote in his letter to Kolender.

At the time, police officials said that Petrick should not have raised the homosexuality issue.

In June Halsey’s attorney, Everett Bobbitt, filed a $20-million claim with the city alleging that the Police Department wrongly fired Halsey and that Petrick committed slander by falsely accusing Halsey of being homosexual.

“I don’t think the district attorney’s decision has any significant impact on the lawsuit,” Bobbitt said Friday. “By spreading the story of homosexuality, it is an invasion of his privacy and also at least negligence, if not intentional infliction of emotional distress.”