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.

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.

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

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.”