COPS WHO LIE DON'T ALWAYS LOSE JOBS

P-I Review Finds 2 Dozen Cases Where Officers Weren't Fired

Lying by police officers is considered a cardinal sin in law
enforcement, a so-called "death penalty" offense that collective
wisdom holds will automatically result in a cop's termination.

But a P-I review of internal police documents in Seattle and other
Washington agencies reveals that's hardly the case.

In the five years ending July 2007, just 13 police officers statewide
had been terminated and disqualified to serve again as police officers
in Washington state because of lying, including the case of a Seattle
officer cheating on an exam.

Yet the P-I found more than two dozen other cases where officers were
alleged to have misled supervisors, misstated important facts or
fabricated information in fieldwork, internal investigations and court
cases without being fired.

Among them, a Tacoma officer accused of falsifying sick leave reports
in 2004; a Federal Way officer who allegedly tried to cover up
improperly throwing away drug evidence in 2002; and a King County
sergeant accused of making "misleading statements" about her alleged
pressuring of a subordinate regarding a public sex arrest case.

In several other cases, officers were not even investigated for
potentially career-ending dishonesty charges despite allegations or
other evidence those officers lied, a review of disciplinary cases
statewide found. Two Tacoma officers claimed a third officer in 2002
provided misinformation in a police report favorable toward a
prominent architect. That officer was never investigated for
dishonesty, records show.

Prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys
whenever a cop involved in their case has a sustained record for
knowingly lying in an official capacity. That requirement came about
because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision known as "Brady v. Maryland,"
and thus officers who lie are known as "Brady cops."

But the P-I found that only a few of the state's largest prosecutor's
offices keep systems to readily track "Brady cops" in their
jurisdictions. The King County Prosecutor's Office only recently began
keeping a so-called "Brady list" after the P-I raised questions about
one such Brady cop in 2005.

Dishonesty cases against police officers can be complex and difficult
to prove, law enforcement officials and police union representatives
say. Such cases often involve one person's word against another's.
It's hard to take away someone's livelihood based on unsubstantiated
claims, they say.

"You've got to be very careful with these cases," said Seattle police
legal counsel Mark McCarty, "because they're a career-ender. We assume
they're going to be appealed somewhere down the line."

Proving lying can be difficult "because you have to prove the element
of intent," McCarty added. "And that's very difficult to prove."

If a police officer is found lying, "termination is appropriate," said
Seattle Police Officers' Guild President Rich O'Neill. "But I don't
think a lot of what (internal investigators) say is lying really meets
that level. I believe when you're going to put a label like 'liar' to
somebody, you should be able to prove that convincingly."

Even if an officer is caught lying, he or she might not face firing
and worse -- revocation of a police license.

"It really depends on who you lie to and what the circumstances are,"
said Doug Blair, deputy director of the Washington State Criminal
Justice Training Commission, which oversees police
certification.

Only certain types of lies -- such as making false reports to other
officers, or "false swearing" by dishonesty in official reports or
hearings -- warrant an officer having his or her license revoked in
Washington, Blair said.

A quirk in state law also makes an officer's lying to internal
investigators a disqualifying offense on its own; but when the same
violation against an officer is sustained with other offenses, it's
not automatically a disqualifier.

"It's a really weird thing that only complicates matters further,"
McCarty said.

Yet records reviewed by the P-I revealed cases that appeared to meet
disqualifying standards falling by the wayside for some officers;
while other officers with seemingly lesser degrees of untruthfulness
losing their jobs and sometimes their licenses.

The Seattle Police Department opened at least 13 internal
investigations from 2005 through mid-2007 involving officers accused
of dishonesty, among other allegations, according to internal records
provided to the P-I.

Of the 13 Seattle cases, four remained open as of late last year. Four
other cases were "inactivated" when accused officers resigned before
the investigations were concluded.

In the remaining five cases, not a single dishonesty charge was
sustained against an officer, records show. In at least three of the
five cases, lower commanders or then-Office of Professional
Accountability Director Sam Pailca recommended dishonesty-related
charges be sustained against accused officers. And in a fourth case, a
high-profile case involving two officers accused of roughing up a drug
suspect in a wheelchair last year, a civilian review board later said
internal investigators should have sustained dishonesty violations
against two accused officers.

But in each case, Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske opted to sustain only
other lesser charges, for which he implemented discipline far less
severe than termination.

Requests to Kerlikowske for comment about these cases were not
returned Monday.

O'Neill, the Seattle guild president, said none of the Seattle
examples are clearly dishonesty cases. Conclusions drawn by internal
investigators were largely based on subjective beliefs that accused
officers weren't telling the truth, he said, but with no other solid
evidence proving dishonesty.

"All of these things are not clearcut cases of lying," O'Neill said.
"When the chief doesn't follow the OPA's recommendations, it's usually
because he got other information that tipped the scales the other way."

Not included among these cases is a more recent Seattle case in which
Kerlikowske fired Officer David Marley for a tangle of charges,
including dishonesty elements. The convoluted firing stems from Marley
allegedly crashing his motorcycle while intoxicated last year, then
hiding from Snohomish County investigators, as well as subsequent
actions. Marley is appealing his firing.

Some departments are tougher than others when handling firing cases.
The Bellevue Police Department has fired at least three officers in
the past three years for dishonesty-related charges, including an
officer who allowed a drunk teenage robbery suspect to leave the scene
of a house party. That officer, Angela Rockcastle, later reported
she'd asked a King County deputy also on scene to keep an eye on the
suspect while she conducted other interviews. After deputies disputed
her account, Rockcastle was investigated and fired. The state later
revoked her police license, though she denied wrongdoing at a hearing.

Discipline records indicate police departments might use the dire
consequences of a dishonesty charge to get rid of officers that aren't
liked for political reasons, while ignoring lies by those who are favored.

A Mountlake Terrace police officer, Jonathan Wender, has accused his
department and the Snohomish County prosecutor's office in a federal
lawsuit of railroading him with a bogus dishonesty charge because he
has favored the de-criminalization of some drug use. Wender said in
his lawsuit that Snohomish County's procedures for handling "Brady"
officers "lacks due process protections and standards and, as a result
of that, "can and has been utilized to sanction officers for unfair
and unlawful reasons."

Wender had been with the department for 15 years when he was
terminated Oct. 19, 2005. His lawsuit says he had had no significant
disciplinary issues.

He was accused of failing to follow up on a citizen's tip about a drug
growing operation.

"In Sgt. Wender's case, a substantial reason this sanction was imposed
and resulted in his termination was his advocacy of drug policy
reform, speech that was disapproved of by the defendants but protected
by the First Amendment," the lawsuit said.

In the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, a lieutenant who headed
internal investigations -- and who had investigated other officers for
lying -- was himself fired after he was accused of tipping off a
county bureaucrat to a fellow officer's alleged cheating on disability
leave. The lieutenant, Gerald Ross, denied the allegation. The deputy
association appealed his termination, but lost, though the evidence
against Ross was contradictory. One of the witnesses against Ross was
himself being probed for dishonesty at the time by the department,
Ross said.

Dishonesty cases have long been sticky issues in the Seattle
department. Seattle has fired officers for dishonesty in the past,
including David K. Shelton, fired for 2003 for cheating on a
promotional exam and later lying about it. But in several other cases,
officers recommended for seemingly supported dishonesty charges have
been let go.

In June 2002, an unnamed Seattle officer falsely told a superior his
patrol car was significantly damaged because of a hit-and-run driver,
when experts said he most likely damaged it backing into a fixed
object. Two civilian witnesses were parked near the officer's patrol
car and didn't see another vehicle hit it. Five accident review board
members didn't believe him, and termed it "false reporting."

Yet the 10-year veteran signed a police traffic collision report,
declaring "under penalty of perjury" that his account of the accident
was true.

"There is compelling evidence in this case to conclude that the named
officer improperly reported damage to his patrol vehicle and submitted
a false statement," concluded Capt. Mark Evenson, then with OPA. "The
named officer's story of what occurred just doesn't add up."

The department sustained a more generic rules violation against the
officer, rather than a dishonesty violation that could have resulted
in termination and loss of his police officer's license. The
discipline meted out wasn't reported in the documents.

Records show that in December 2002, a Hispanic man claimed an officer
punched him in the kidney in the International District, then drove
him to Rainier Avenue South and South Dearborn where he shoved him
against the patrol car, injuring his nose. The complainant called 911
from a convenience store after the officer left.

The officer insisted he never drove the man to the second location,
but instead said in an official internal investigations interview that
he left the man in the International District. However, two other
officers were "under the impression" their colleague was going to
drive the man to the second location, and a report said "it is
unlikely (the complainant) could have walked to the 800 block of
Rainier and called 911 when he did."

Pailca, then OPA director, concluded the officer showed "dishonesty"
and likely "transported the complainant (to Rainier) in anger and
retaliation. But the department sustained "abuse of authority" rather
than dishonesty.

The Seattle Police Department opened 13 investigations involving
allegations that officers were dishonest -- a potentially
career-ending offense -- from January 2005 through August 2007. Yet in
none of those cases were dishonesty charges upheld. In at least three
of five cases that were completed, Chief Gil Kerlikowske declined
recommendations made by others to sustain the serious dishonesty
charges. They include:

Allegations that Officer Richard Roberson inappropriately destroyed
evidence involving a trespasser found with cocaine who had been
detained by security guards at the Seattle Public Library in July
2005. An initial investigation concluded Roberson admonished the
suspect, then released him after improperly confiscating the cocaine
and a crack pipe. Roberson destroyed the drugs and pipe without taking
the items into evidence or writing a required report, investigators
found. The OPA director recommended Roberson also be sustained for
violating an "honesty in reports" policy for contradictions between
what he told investigators and an admonishment form he issued about
the trespasser. Kerlikowske later sustained only the mishandling of
evidence charge, giving the officer a 30-day unpaid suspension.
Roberson has appealed.

Claims that Officer Arlandi Muhammed left his official sidearm
unattended while at a friend's Lynnwood apartment in August 2006,
allowing the gun to be fired. An internal investigation recommended
several charges, including that Muhammed did not immediately report
the incident; illegally removed evidence from a potential crime scene
and made "false statements" to Lynnwood police. Muhammed's statements
to his own department's investigators about what happened conflicted
with what he previously told a Lynnwood detective and with what
witnesses say they observed, documents showed. Kerlikowske sustained
one charge against Muhammed, for failure to exercise appropriate
judgment and discretion, and transferred him as discipline.

Allegations that Officer Salvatore Ditusa improperly used a city car,
worked as a flagger without a city permit while off-duty and misused
his department sick leave to take unauthorized trips "for the purpose
of attending a boxing match." An investigation found Ditusa's
"reporting that he was sick, when he appears to have not been, so that
he could travel across country, calls into question his integrity and
honesty." Kerlikowske sustained only a misuse of city equipment charge
and gave him a written reprimand.