It's my understanding that the source claiming the cop admitted to lying is anonymous.  I read somewhere that the source is likely a lawyer involved in the case.  Either way, I think the likely scenario is the source is correct, but I'll wait to see that from someone other than the biased posters here.  If you have a link to the statement of the officer I'll be glad to look at it and revise my position.  

Otherwise, this blogger said it best..

I know that there will now be a pack of libertarians in the comments screaming that I was wrong and I owe an apology. I sense that it will infuriate them to know that I do not apologize for saying that we should wait for the facts before forming concrete opinions. If you form a firm and unswerving opinion before all the facts are in, sometimes your opinion will prove to have been wrong, and sometimes it will have been right. But the fact that your opinion was right doesn't prove the wisdom of leaping to unswerving opinions before the facts are in. By that logic, a man who risks his life savings on a spin of the roulette wheel and wins has necessarily done a wise thing. After all, he won, didn't he?