To the editor:

I read the article in Tuesday’s paper regarding the suspension of Lawrence’s “top drug officer.” According to the article, Judge Malone says the court “would not have considered the information attributed to the confidential informant as reliable,” had he been specifically told the informant had been convicted of drunken driving three times, felony theft two times, forgery once and bad checks once.

On the other hand he confirms that he was told the informant’s past included a few “traffic-type things, driving on a suspended license … a lot of domestic-type things. A lot of failure to appears or failure to complies. There was a theft.” Forgive me for being so naive, but if Judge Malone found this informant reliable based on what he was told, at what point did these other issues convince him otherwise?

Terry Jacobsen,

Lawrence