LAWRENCE CASE SHOWS NEED FOR POLICE POLICY ON INFORMANTS, EXPERTS SAY

Most police departments in Kansas have policies for dealing with
confidential informants.

The Lawrence Police Department does not.

In the past month, prosecutors have dismissed at least 10 cases linked to a
fired Lawrence police officer, Stuart Peck. They are reviewing other cases
he worked on after joining the department in 2000.

Peck, 38, was fired after a Douglas County judge accused him of withholding
information about a confidential source on a search warrant application.
Peck is appealing, and a city panel will review his case today.

National law enforcement experts say confidential informants are essential
for criminal investigations. As consultant Bill Wagner put it: What better
way is there to learn what criminals are doing than to talk to them?

Dealing with informants opens an array of legal issues, and that is why all
police departments need to have policies, said Wagner, a retired Washington
detective supervisor who trains police officers across the country on the
use of confidential sources.

Lawrence drafted a policy in June but never adopted it, said Sgt. Mike
Pattrick, Police Department spokesman. He said he did not know when the
policy would be approved, and he would not comment on the importance of
having one.

According to Wagner, a consultant for the Indianapolis-based Public Agency
Training Council, what has occurred in Lawrence is a classic example of the
bad things that can happen when a department has no policy.

"Seasoned officers come in and don't have a clue about confidential
informants," Wagner said. "That's why policy is needed -- it gives the
department, the officers and the informants credibility to successfully
take criminals to court."

Peck, a 12-year veteran in law enforcement, said he did not receive
training on how to use informants. He was not a member of the
Lawrence-Douglas County drug unit but worked on many drug cases as a patrol
officer.

The Lawrence department will not comment on Peck's case, because it is a
personnel issue, Pattrick said.

Keeping records

Bill White, president of the Kansas Narcotics Officers Association, said he
was surprised that some departments had no policy on confidential informants.

"All accredited departments are required to," said White, a Topeka police
sergeant. "That way everyone -- lawyers, police and judges -- is on the
same page."

But the Lawrence Police Department and the Douglas County Sheriff's
Department, which share a drug unit, are not accredited. The Sheriff's
Department doesn't have a policy, either, Sheriff Rick Trapp said.

Trapp, however, said his department trained deputies to document each step
they took in dealing with confidential informants.

"With what's going on now (in Lawrence), it's important that we get one
approved," Trapp said. "We'll study what national organizations and
departments in Johnson County do."

The policies of the Lenexa, the Olathe and the Overland Park police
departments have common requirements:

. Folders are kept on confidential informants that include their criminal
history and a photograph.

. Numbers are assigned to informants to give credibility to court records.
(To protect informants, authorities don't use informants' names in court
documents.)

. Sometimes informants are paid cash if they provide good information, or
prosecutors drop charges in the informants' pending criminal cases. Any
payments must be documented with receipts, and any dropped charges must be
reflected in court records.

. Police officers do not socialize with confidential informants outside work.

Peck said he relied on common sense and kept records about his confidential
source the best he knew how.

Working with informants

Peck said he remembered another Lawrence police officer giving him two
words of advice before he began making drug arrests based on tips from a
confidential informant, who had used crack cocaine and had a criminal
background: Be careful.

"Knowing what this cost me -- my career, my livelihood -- no way could I do
that again," Peck said. "It's extremely hazardous to your professional
health and credibility. It's easier to not work an informant than to work one."

Peck said he first met the confidential informant on a traffic stop. Later
at another stop, Peck said, he slipped the person his business card. Peck
wanted information on drugs; the informant wanted his driving privileges back.

Peck said the informant started calling him often. Each of the dozens of
tips led to arrests, Peck said, and he kept a daily log of all the information.

But Peck didn't keep a folder containing the informant's photograph or
criminal history, as most policies dictate.

In an interview, Peck said his supervisor, Sgt. Craig Shanks, did not
provide training on how to document his work with the informant or how to
deal with the informant.

"My supervisor knew everything I was doing," Peck said. "He knew who my
informant was -- he could pick his face out of a crowd."

Pattrick, the department spokesman, said Shanks and other Lawrence officers
had been told not to comment on the case.

Last month a Douglas County District Court judge questioned the credibility
of an affidavit Peck signed in 2001 for a warrant to search a house for
evidence of drug dealing.

Judge Michael Malone wrote that Peck had referred to a single informant as
"they," had left out information about the informant's criminal history and
had not mentioned that Peck had arranged the dismissal of a traffic charge.

"The magistrate reviewing the affidavit for search warrant could not have
been more misled about the confidential informant's veracity," Malone wrote.

Peck said that as a precaution he had identified the informant as "they" so
that the person would not be revealed as a "he" or "she."

For the same reason, he said, he did not list each aspect of the
informant's criminal background. And he said he had requested dismissal of
charges against the informant as a common police exchange for tips that
lead to more serious criminals.

Peck said he asked prosecutors to drop the informant's traffic charge and
some speeding tickets, which they did. And he said he requested money to
pay the informant to keep tips coming, but it never materialized.

"This guy put his life on the line for me," Peck said.

The informant, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said in an interview
that Peck gave up a lot in turn.

"He's my best friend, and I'd do anything for him," the informant said. "He
has been wronged severely. When he was making drug busts, crack cocaine was
hard to get in this college town. Now all the cockroaches (drug dealers)
are coming back again."

Today, Peck will present his case to a five-member panel of Lawrence city
employees. Police Chief Ron Olin will explain why the department fired him
on Feb. 12.

The Star obtained a copy of Peck's grievance statement. It alleges, among
other things, that he is the victim of a conspiracy that began after he
wrote a memo to department officials Dec. 18.

In the memo, Peck wrote that two drug dealers had told his informant that
they knew they were being investigated because they had a source inside the
department.

Pattrick said Monday night that he could not comment on Peck's allegations.

The grievance hearing will be closed to the public. Even attorneys are not
allowed, said Frank Reeb, Lawrence's director of administrative services.

Once the panel makes a decision, it can be appealed to Lawrence City
Manager Mike Wildgen. If there is another appeal, it will go to the City
Commission.

Wagner, the consultant, said he had seen more than 20 officers across the
country lose their jobs over confidential informants. Some of the officers
were fired by departments that did not have policies, he said.

"Usually it blows up in their (department officials') faces when it's too
late," he said.