DOUBTS ABOUT LAWRENCE POLICE OFFICER ENDANGER CASES

A Douglas County judge threw out crucial evidence in a drug case after
accusing an officer of lying on a search-warrant application.

Now, "more than a dozen" cases that cannot be won without the testimony of
Lawrence police Officer Stuart Peck could be dismissed, said the Douglas
County district attorney, Christine Kenney.

"As far as we're concerned, this officer is not available to testify on
criminal cases at this time," Kenney said. "It's unfortunate. I'm afraid
this is going to cause a lot of hardship."

Lawrence police officials put Peck on paid leave after the accusation. They
expect a city attorney to decide this week whether he will stay on the
force. Peck, who joined the department in 2000, is on his third week of
paid leave.

"We've started investigating information that had to do with improper
testimony," said Police Lt. Dave Cobb.

Attempts to reach Peck were unsuccessful Tuesday.

Peck was an Overland Park officer from September 1988 until he resigned on
Jan. 1, 1999, according to that department's records. He worked for a
private investigation agency before starting work in Lawrence.

In 2001, he signed an affidavit requesting a warrant to search a house for
evidence of drug dealing, including cocaine, small plastic bags and scales.

In a ruling last week, Douglas County District Judge Michael Malone said
Peck misled him in the affidavit by referring to a confidential informant
in the plural "they."

The judge said Peck also lied about the informant's criminal past and
failed to mention that Peck had arranged for dismissal of a charge against
the informant of driving while suspended.

Malone also said a member of the Lawrence drug-enforcement unit had warned
Peck about worries that the informant did not give "the whole information
at times." But Peck wrote that his informant's credibility was
"unquestioned," the judge wrote.

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

Malone said Peck had known the informant for about four months before he
asked for the search warrant.

Once, the judge wrote, Peck showed up when another officer allegedly found
marijuana after stopping the informant's car. Peck said he did not
intervene in the case, but Malone wrote that prosecutors never received
reports about the matter, and evidence custodians never received the
suspected marijuana for testing.

Without the confidential informant in the drug case, Malone wrote, there
would not have been probable cause to issue a search warrant. The judge
would have been able to consider only that Peck watched a car leave the
house, stopped it for rolling through a stop sign and found suspicious
items inside.

Peck told the judge that inside the car was the smell of burnt marijuana,
scales with white-powder residue and $800 cash.

"There is no probable cause connection that defendant resided at the place
searched, and there is no probable cause connection that the defendant was
committing any drug dealing from the residence searched," Malone wrote.

~~~
The Associated Press contributed to this report.