INFORMANT STEPS UP TO DEFEND SUSPENDED POLICEMAN

Tipster Credits Officer With Helping to Lessen Drug Availability in City

The informant in a drug case that led to a Lawrence police officer's
suspension says there's another side to the story.

"I think (Officer Stuart "Mike") Peck ought to be commended for what
he did -- people need to know about the job he did," said the
informant, who agreed to share his story on the condition that he not
be identified.

Using state and court records and off-the-record interviews, the
Journal-World confirmed the informant's role in several drug cases.
The newspaper agreed to not identify him because of concern for his
safety.

"Before Peck started his rampage, I could call 10 different people and
get 10 different kinds of crack," the informant said. "But then things
dried up; you had to make four calls before you find somebody who had
any -- that was because of Peck."

Since Peck's suspension, the informant said, the city's drug trade is
"back to 24-7."

Peck, 32, was put on paid leave about three weeks ago amid reports of
possible misconduct. Thursday, he was suspended without pay.

On Jan. 24, Douglas County District Court Judge Michael Malone,
responding to a motion filed in a drug case, ruled Peck had misled the
court by withholding and misrepresenting information used in getting a
search warrant to search the house of defendant James Dyshaun Hawkins.

Conduct Questioned

In his ruling, Malone cited Peck for lying about his informant's past
- - saying it was "unquestioned," when, in fact, the informant had
several felony convictions - and for failing to mention Peck had
helped the informant get out of a traffic ticket and a domestic
violence charge.

Malone also questioned why marijuana taken from the informant during a
traffic stop hadn't resulted in the informant being charged with possession.

The informant used by Police Officer Mike Peck in numerous drug cases
is commending the officer, who was recently suspended by the
department for lying about the informant's past. The police informant
says since Peck's suspension, the city's drug trade is "back to 24-7."

Because Malone had been misled, the judge said he had no choice but to
suppress the evidence -- cocaine, marijuana and drug paraphernalia --
obtained during the search.

Six days later, the Douglas County District Attorney's Office dropped
its case against Hawkins.

"With the evidence suppressed, there wasn't much left to go forward
with," said Dist. Atty. Christine Kenney. Other cases involving Peck
also are being dropped.

The informant acknowledged his role in the Hawkins case. And it's
true, he said, that his past was dotted with felonies and jail time.
But what he told Peck, the informant said, was always on the money.

"Show me one time a door was kicked in and the drugs weren't where I
said they were and the money wasn't where I said it was," he said.
"You can't because it never happened, not once. My information was
always accurate.

"Bottom line, isn't that all that matters? That the information was
accurate?" he asked. "What difference does my past make? You can paint
me out to be some kind of awful person. But you're not going to find
any informants singing in the choir. They're all like me."

But defense attorneys say results are not all that
matters.

"This is a situation in which the judge is being asked to rule on the
credibility of an unknown person, and for that to happen he has to be
given a complete picture -- warts and all -- it can't be sugar-
coated," said Shelley Bock, a Lawrence criminal defense attorney.

"The fear is that when the police are free to sugar-coat these kinds
of things, then where are the checks and balances? Or if they'll do it
for a search warrant, what's to stop them the next time? Where is that
line drawn? That's why this is such a big deal, you cannot have a
policeman misleading a judge."

The Drug Scene

Most of the city's crack houses, the informant said, are in east
Lawrence.

The dealers don't own the houses, he said. They rent
them.

"Every one of them is owned by one of two landlords in town -- two
slumlords, I should say," he said. "You give them $1,000 cash for a
place that's worth $200 a month, and they don't care what you do with
it."

In Lawrence, most crack customers are "lower-to lower-middle-income
people," the informant said. "If they start out middle income, they'll
be lower income in no time."

He added, "The university kids are into the powder (cocaine) and
marijuana."

Most dealers, the informant said, don't fear getting arrested, knowing
the chances they'll spend much time in jail are slim.

"Let's say you get busted six times for dealing -- what's the first
thing that happens when you go to court?" he said. "You plead down to
one count, so once you're caught, why quit?"

The informant said there was nothing unusual about a drug dealer being
released on bond and selling drugs the next day.

"Happens all the time," he said. "It's a way to make money, and that's
all these people care about: Money.

"A drug dealer isn't your friend," he said. "If you get in a situation
where you need help or some money, they'll laugh at you. All they want
is your money."

In Lawrence, he said, the surest place to find drug dealers is at the
topless clubs.

"That's where they all hang out, do business -- for obvious reasons:
Everybody there has money and when the place closes, they still have
money; a good stripper makes $700 to $800 a night."

Peck's Dilemma

The informant said he found it odd that three of Peck's superiors
signed off on the information in the affidavit Peck filed with the
request for the search warrant -- but Peck was the only officer who
has been suspended.

"Why is that? They all know me, they all know my record, they all
signed off on it," the informant said.

Lawrence Police Department spokesman Lt. Dave Cobb said Peck's
informant was making a valid point.

"That's going to be looked at pretty hard," Cobb said. "There are
questions as to who knew what and when they knew it -- and what they
should have known. But there are also questions as to whether
information was misrepresented to them like it was misrepresented to
Judge Malone."

Peck, who does not live in Lawrence, joined the Lawrence Police
Department in early 2000. Previously, he'd been an officer with the
Overland Park department for 10 years and four months.

He could not be reached for comment.

The Meeting

The informant said his relationship with Peck began about 18 months
ago, when Peck saw him drive through an intersection just as a yellow
traffic light turned red.

The informant said he drove to a nearby grocery store, parked his car
and went inside. When he returned, Peck was waiting for him.

"He knew me because he'd seen me going in and out all the drug houses
around town," the informant said. "And I knew he'd seen me run the red
light, so I said, 'OK, you got me. Go ahead, give me a ticket.'"

But Peck said he wasn't going to give him a ticket. The conversation
turned to drugs, and Peck asked if he could search the car. The
informant said he could.

"I knew he wouldn't find anything, so I let him," the informant said.
No drugs were found.

After chatting for a few more minutes, Peck gave the informant a card
with his name and telephone number. He encouraged the informant to
call if he ever felt like sharing information.

At first, the informant said he didn't give the incident much thought.
But a few days later, a drug dealer cheated him out of some money. The
informant called Peck.

Within a few days, the drug dealer was arrested.

"I'm not going to lie to you, I liked paying the guy back for what he
did. That was cool," the informant said. "But the more I thought about
it, it was like -- look at what drugs and drug dealers have done to
me. I lost my marriage. I've lost my kids. I don't know how many jobs
I've lost -- all because of drugs.

"So after that first time, I'm thinking, hey, I know my life is ruined
but maybe I can make a difference."

'On the inside'

The informant said he fed Peck details that led to at least 30
arrests.

His information was good, the informant said, because he was buying
and using drugs.

"That's the only way to get good information -- you have to get on the
inside, you have to be using.

"And I'm not going to lie to you, I was using," the informant said.
"Since I met Mike, I've probably spent $15,000 to $20,000 on drugs."

The informant, who is self-employed, said he makes enough money to buy
drugs and has never received payment or drug-buy money from the Police
Department.

Throughout their relationship, the informant said Peck called him
three or four times a day on his cell phone to check on him.

"He kept telling me he wanted me to get my life straightened out. He
kept telling me he didn't want anything bad to happen. He didn't want
me taking any chances. He didn't want me doing this for him," the
informant said. "The message was always the same, and I kept telling
him, no, I was doing it because I want to."

The informant said he was crushed three weeks ago when, unaware of the
trouble brewing, he called Peck at home.

"I could tell by his voice that something wasn't right," the informant
said. "I asked what was wrong and he said, '... buddy, I'm no longer
able to speak to you' -- that was it, click. Man, that really hurt; it
still brings tears to my eyes, thinking about it."

Jealousy?

The informant said he was convinced Peck's troubles have more to do
with Peck scoring more arrests than the entire city-county Drug
Enforcement Unit, and an intra-departmental dispute regarding whether
the informant deserved to be paid for his efforts.

Peck thought the informant should be paid. Peck's superiors thought
otherwise, arguing that the department couldn't pay someone it knew
was using drugs.

"I didn't really care," the informant said. "But it became an
issue."

That's not how Lawrence Police spokesman Cobb remembers the unit's
dealings with the informant.

"He approached the Drug Enforcement Unit several times after arrests
had been made, asking to get paid," Cobb said. "They declined; there
were concerns about his credibility."

Cobb declined to say how much the informant's drug use contributed to
the decision not to pay him.

"That would be a factor, but the bigger issue, really, is that we
don't have the money. It's not in the budget; we don't rely a lot on
information that's compensated," he said.

Cobb doubted the informant's assertion that the Drug Enforcement Unit
was jealous of Peck's successes.

"There's a lot I can't say because we'd be getting into personnel
(issues), and I can't do that," Cobb said. "But I will say that
jealousy is not what brought this on."

Cobb said the six-person Drug Enforcement Unit last year completed 220
investigations, carried out 34 search warrants, made 47 arrests and
seized 13 methamphetamine labs.

"For a unit that small, that's pretty darn good," he said. "I said
it's a six-person unit, but when you add in days off, vacation, sick
days and all the time spent in court, you're really looking at, on
average, about two and a half people being there at any one time. It's
not a big unit."

Though Peck was well-known for going after drugs and drug dealers, the
department has not compiled an accurate tally of his arrests.

Asked if he thought the informant's claim that the efforts he and Peck
made had resulted in more that 30 arrests in 18 months, Cobb replied,
"That's something I wouldn't dispute."

"But you know, at some point, this all comes down to all of us being
professionals doing our jobs to the best of our abilities, whether
that leads to, say, one arrest or four," he said. "We're all working
for the same thing, and that's to make a better Lawrence."