A Los Angeles judge has dismissed felony perjury charges against LAPD Officer James Clifton Andersen, although the officer admitted in an application to another police force that he had lied under oath in a drunk driving case.
Los Angeles County prosecutors filed criminal charges against the 30-year-old Andersen for allegedly testifying falsely in a 1997 preliminary hearing that, before making a traffic stop, he saw a DUI suspect driving a car. Superior Court Judge Michael Luros ruled last week that there was not enough evidence that the LAPD officer intentionally lied for him to be tried.
The Andersen case stemmed from an arrest near Sepulveda Boulevard and Rayen Street in the San Fernando Valley. The case came to the attention of the district attorney's office last year, when the four-year officer applied to join the Fontana Police Department. In his application, Andersen, who was to take a polygraph exam, completed a form that included questions about his experiences in law enforcement.
The examiner's interest soared when he saw Andersen's responses to two questions: "Have you ever lied or committed perjury in court or other official proceeding?" and "Have you colored or embellished your testimony to aid in getting a conviction?"
Andersen first wrote N for both, but then crossed out the responses and twice scribbled Y. Then he explained in writing: "1997. Stated that I observed DUI suspect driving vehicle on my partner's word. I saw susp outside of vehicle."
Fontana officials reported the answers to the Los Angeles Police Department, which opened an internal affairs investigation. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office charged Andersen in April with perjury under oath and filing a false police report. A conviction on the charges could have resulted in a five-year prison sentence.
In his ruling at the end of Andersen's preliminary hearing, Judge Luros said there was not enough evidence presented in court to show that the officer intended to lie in his 1997 court testimony. "There's nothing to indicate that the statement was willfully, intentionally false," Luros said. "At this time, the court finds then it cannot find any evidence legally sufficient to hold the defendant to answer. The case dismissed."
Luros also said in court that the officer could have been referring in the questionnaire to any 1997 DUI case--not necessarily the Rivera case.
