To the editor:

I recently asked someone I know who has been in trouble with the law because of drugs what it meant that an informant had “unquestionable reliability.” He unhesitatingly stated, “That means all the information he is giving is correct.” I asked him if he thought it was related to his personal character. He quickly replied no, all informants have shady backgrounds, that’s what makes them good informants because they are on the inside.

When Officer Peck referred to his informant as unquestionably reliable, he was referring to his information, not his background. All persons involved knew this informant had a criminal record, including Judge Malone. Officer Peck’s superior officers knew the informant, as did some district attorneys. All affidavits were properly submitted and reviewed through proper channels. The DA’s and superiors were asked by Officer Peck to review wording. No one offered correctional advice. Officer Peck did nothing of a coercive nature. He never had any intent to lie, mislead or sugar-coat.

It seems ironic that the one whose “credibility” is in question the most, the informant, has at least in some ways, more character and credibility than the rest of us. He has put his life in danger and has attempted to come to the aid of someone he feels has been wronged.

I have known Officer Peck for 27 years. He is my brother-in-law. He is not a liar. He was acting with “professional” intent to make “a better Lawrence.” His family stands behind him.

Ken Swygard,

Olathe