A man who entered a plea in a 2001 felony drug case is suing the city, alleging a police officer involved in the case violated his civil rights by submitting a “fraudulent” report.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, is the latest legal fallout from the firing of officer Stuart “Mike” Peck in early 2003. Peck was fired after Douglas County District Court Judge Michael Malone ruled that he had lied to get a search warrant in a drug case, a move that led to the dismissal of nearly 30 of Peck’s criminal cases and at least one previous legal action against the city.

Malone found, among other things, that Peck understated his informant’s criminal history, had fixed traffic tickets for the informant and knew the informant sometimes went on cocaine binges.

The new lawsuit, seeking damages of more than $75,000, was filed last month by Bradley G. DiTeresi, 23, of Johnson County. He was living at 616 Fla. in April 2001 when Peck busted him for marijuana based on information from a confidential informant.

To this day, the 41-year-old Peck maintains he did nothing wrong – in this case or any other. He said police and prosecutors should have challenged Malone’s ruling, which effectively ended his policing career by taking away his credibility in court.

“Everybody decided to make me the sacrificial lamb and back away from me because I was aggressive in going after drug dealers. Now they’re screwing themselves because they opened the Pandora’s Box,” Peck said. “Saying that anything that I touched was tainted, that’s just bogus. That’s just inviting lawsuits.”

• Witness describes attempt on life (07-04-05)
• City faces lawsuit for fired officer’s illegal search (10-29-03)
• Report rejects fired officer’s claims (06-07-03)

According to an application for an arrest warrant Peck wrote at the time, police knocked on DiTeresi’s door in the middle of the night, received his and his roommate’s signed consent to search the apartment, and found smoking pipes, rolling papers, a digital scale, marijuana in baggies and $140 in cash.

DiTeresi entered a plea to felony possession of drug paraphernalia and received probation. But in August 2003, after Peck’s firing, a prosecutor wrote to DiTeresi’s defense attorney that during the police department’s internal affairs investigation of Peck, “I became aware of facts pertaining to this case that concern me.”

DiTeresi’s lawsuit does not say what those facts are, nor does it say what he claims was false about Peck’s report in the case. Christine Kenney, who was district attorney at the time, said she couldn’t comment about details of DiTeresi’s case or what caused concern for prosecutors.

DiTeresi alleges the city was negligent in hiring and retaining Peck and failing to supervise him. He also alleges he was unlawfully arrested and prosecuted in violation of his constitutional rights.

Both DiTeresi’s attorney, Paul D. Cramm, and Gerald L. Cooley, an attorney representing the city, declined comment on the case, saying it was too early to talk about it.

It’s at least the second legal action against the city involving Peck.

Several months after his firing, Lawrence resident James D. Hawkins – the defendant in the drug case that led to Malone’s ruling – filed notice he intended to sue the city. Hawkins alleged that Peck illegally searched and arrested him in a marijuana and cocaine case in November 2001 and that he was prosecuted based on “false testimony.”

Peck said he’s been told Hawkins’ case was settled out of court. Details of the settlement weren’t available late this week.