A Superior Court judge tossed out the state’s criminal case against a former sheriff’s deputy accused of lying about his response to a 911 hang-up call last year.

Judge Vicki Churchill said a statement that former deputy Jay Wallace gave to a supervisor could not be used as evidence against him.

Wallace, a career police officer who ran for Island County Sheriff last year, was fired by former Sheriff Mike Hawley after the sheriff’s office claimed that Wallace shirked his duty and then lied about it when he didn’t respond to a 911 call where a woman was reportedly held hostage in Freeland.

Wallace emerged from the court hearing Wednesday triumphant, but with strong words for his former boss.

“From the beginning, the charges were false and stemmed from political harassment. Hawley did not want to see me elected sheriff,” Wallace said.

Hawley said he stood by his decision to fire Wallace.

“I disagree with the decision,” Hawley said. “The internal investigation had not started when Wallace was asked to provide a statement. The ruling was on a technicality.”

“It does not reflect the merits of the case. I still stand by my decision to terminate Wallace in April,” Hawley said.

Christon Skinner, Wallace’s attorney, filed a motion to suppress evidence Jan. 24 in Island County Superior Court.

It sought to keep off limits the statement Wallace made as a law enforcement officer after the 911 controversy began last year.

Judge Churchill said Wallace’s report was protected under the “Garrity Rule” that says statements taken during an internal investigation cannot be used against officers later in court.

“Because there was an internal investigation, any statement would be protected under Garrity,” Churchill said. “Wallace was ordered to provide a statement after the internal investigation had begun, therefore under Garrity, the motion to suppress is granted.”

Churchill noted the U.S. Supreme Court landmark “Garrity” decision, which said statements New Jersey police officers made in an internal investigation could not be used as evidence against them.

Skinner said Wallace was not given a Garrity form when he was questioned about the 911 incident, but he did write “internal investigation” on his statement.

Several days later, however, Wallace was ordered by a supervisor to re-submit the statement with the heading “officer’s report.”

“A zebra’s stripes can’t be changed by calling it a horse,” Skinner said.

Wallace was charged by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office with a gross misdemeanor of false swearing last August; authorities alleged he lied about the 911 incident on his written police report. He faced a year in jail and a $5,000 fine upon conviction.

Without Wallace’s statement, however, the state’s case against Wallace collapsed. The case was dismissed by Churchill Wednesday.

Wallace, a candidate for Island County Sheriff last year, said he had predicted the outcome.

“During the election, I said the case against me would self-destruct. And it has,” Wallace said.

In court arguments earlier this week, Scott Marlow of the state Attorney General’s Office said the Garrity decision was not relevant in the case because Wallace was asked by his supervisor, not the internal affairs investigator, to provide a report to the officer who was looking into the sexual assault.

“This was criminal investigation. Wallace was told specifically that they wanted an officer’s statement. If there were lies in the officers’ statement they aren’t protected under Garrity,” Marlow said.

Churchill, though, agreed with Wallace’s attorney that Wallace was ordered by a supervisor to write a report about his actions during the 911 incident on Feb. 6 and 7, 2006. Failure to provide the report would have resulted in discipline, she said.

In spite of the state’s loss, Marlow was satisfied with the decision.

“It was a good decision. They had the better case,” Marlow said.

“I hate to see cases decided on a technicality,” he added.

The dismissal does not affect Wallace’s arbitration process with the Island County Deputies Union, which is expected to occur in early summer.

Mark Plumberg, spokesman for the union, would not comment about the Wallace case at this time.

Wallace’s wife and son and two members of the media were in the courtroom to hear the decision on the case.

A jubilant Wallace said after the hearing he has been vindicated.

He disputed the allegation that the woman who called 911 last year was in danger. Wallace has always said he saw the girl during his visit to the Freeland home after the first 911 call and the woman appeared OK.

On the dispatch tape of the 911 call, Wallace referred to seeing a man at the home, which led police to believe that Wallace had changed his story.

“The girl was never in harm’s way. She wasn’t kidnapped or raped,” Wallace said.

“She had been in the cabin for a week with the guy ha having a good time. She was having sex with the guy,” Wallace said.

Wallace also said the investigation into the incident was flawed that he was never ask to provide a police report about what had occurred there.

Wallace slammed the sheriff’s office investigation into the sexual assault, and said it was poorly done.

“This should be a wake-up call for the county,” he said.

Gayle Saran can be reached at 221-5300 or gsaran@southwhidbeyrecord.com.