Mullock’s troubles began in January 2010, when he was accused of brandishing a gun during an off-duty fracas and put on administrative leave from the department. Eventually, he pleaded to a misdemeanor charge in that case.
While he was on paid leave, a deputy district attorney reviewing a DUI case noticed discrepancies between Mullock’s police report and footage from his patrol cruiser’s in-car camera.
That launched an extensive review by police officials and prosecutors into cases in which Mullock was the primary officer or a key witness.
Mullock resigned from the department in late August. In September, Scully announced her office had to dismiss 79 cases – most of them involving DUIs and some of them already adjudicated – because of questions about Mullock’s credibility. The dismissals resulted in the wiping of criminal records, repayment of court fees and the reinstatement of suspended driver’s licenses....
Sacramento police officer faces 34 counts of perjury, falsifying police reports
by Minugh, Kim. "Sacramento ex-cop faces 34 charges of lying, perjury." The Sacramento Bee. May. 19, 2011. http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/19/3637775/sacramento-ex-cop-faces-34-charges.html
For the first time in more than 20 years, Sacramento County prosecutors are going after a former cop for allegedly lying under oath.
District Attorney Jan Scully announced Wednesday that her office had filed 34 felony charges against former Sacramento Police Officer Brandon Mullock. She accused him of lying in police reports, in hearings and on driver’s license suspension forms.
Twenty-four of those charges allege that Mullock, 26, falsified his reports. Ten allege perjury.
Mullock surrendered to authorities Wednesday and was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail. His bail was set at $80,000, which he posted shortly thereafter.
Reached later, he declined to talk with The Bee.
David P. Mastagni, whose firm is representing Mullock, said he did not have enough information in the case yet to comment, other than to say: “We’d like to thank the public and people who have supported Officer Mullock.”
In a morning news conference, Scully was blunt about the impact of Mullock’s alleged actions. She accused him of widespread malfeasance that endangered the public’s safety, waylaid justice and consumed valuable resources within her agency and the Police Department – and for no apparent reason.
“Your guess is as good as mine,” Scully said, when asked what might have driven Mullock’s alleged behavior. “It’s inexplicable.”
Mullock’s troubles began in January 2010, when he was accused of brandishing a gun during an off-duty fracas and put on administrative leave from the department. Eventually, he pleaded to a misdemeanor charge in that case.
While he was on paid leave, a deputy district attorney reviewing a DUI case noticed discrepancies between Mullock’s police report and footage from his patrol cruiser’s in-car camera.
That launched an extensive review by police officials and prosecutors into cases in which Mullock was the primary officer or a key witness.
Mullock resigned from the department in late August. In September, Scully announced her office had to dismiss 79 cases – most of them involving DUIs and some of them already adjudicated – because of questions about Mullock’s credibility. The dismissals resulted in the wiping of criminal records, repayment of court fees and the reinstatement of suspended driver’s licenses.
Scully said all of the DUI cases included other evidence of the suspect’s guilt – including blood tests – but that Mullock’s issues made them impossible and unethical to prosecute.
In several cases, defendants whose cases were wiped from the books went on to get another DUI, Scully said.
“His actions put further at risk the safety of our community,” she said.
The criminal charges stem from 24 of the 79 dismissed cases, those in which prosecutors found concrete evidence that Mullock had falsified his police report or lied under oath – mainly, in-car camera videos that contradicted the version of events laid out in his reports.
Scully said Mullock lied about details such as a suspect’s performance on a sobriety test, suspect and witness statements and suspect behavior – even details such as the kind of shoes they were wearing at the time of arrest.
Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said reaction to the case within the agency has been one of “bewilderment.”
“Why did he not document it properly?” he asked. “Why embellish when you in fact have a DUI driver?”
Scully commended police officials for their cooperation in the investigation, and emphasized how rare it is for prosecutors to find such faulty police work.
She said Mullock’s alleged problems do not reflect the “excellent and honest work done every day by other members of the Sacramento Police Department” and other local law enforcement agencies.
Assistant District Attorney Albert Locher said the last time the District Attorney’s Office prosecuted a local cop for perjury was 1988.
Even compared with cases involving police misconduct since then, Scully said, the Mullock debacle stands out.
“This is a lot of cases,” she said. “There’s just something wrong with this guy. I don’t know what it is.”
No comments:
Post a Comment