A Lawrence police officer known for going after the city’s drug dealers was fired Monday.

Officer Stuart “Mike” Peck said he would appeal the decision by Police Chief Ron Olin.

“I have done nothing wrong,” Peck said.

Peck, 38, was put on administrative leave with pay early last month amid reports of possible misconduct. He was suspended without pay Jan. 30, six days after Douglas County District Judge Michael Malone ruled Peck supplied false and misleading information in an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant in 2001.

“I did not lie or mislead the judge intentionally in any way,” Peck said. “This whole thing is one big misunderstanding. It’s a mess.”

Police department spokesman Lt. Dave Cobb declined comment on Peck’s firing.

“The decision has been made that, really, this is a personnel matter,” Cobb said. “We’re not going to be issuing a statement.”

Peck said he offered to take a polygraph test to prove his innocence.

“They chose not to give me one,” he said. “So I’m trying to get one on my own, so I can clear my name.”

Meanwhile, Peck, who’s married and has four children ages 9 to 15, said he was looking for a job.

“I am a Christian,” Peck said. “I try to live by what the Bible says. I work hard. I try to do what’s right. I stand for justice.

“I don’t know where I’ll end up, but I’m guessing I’ll land on my feet,” he said. “I’m praying, and I know a lot of people are praying for me.”

Lawrence police officer Stuart Mike Peck has been fired after a judge ruled he supplied false information in an affidavit.

Troubles begin

In law enforcement since 1987, Peck joined the Lawrence Police Department two years ago after several years on the Overland Park police force. He lives in Johnson County.

Peck’s troubles began Oct. 31, 2001, when he filed an affidavit with Douglas County District Court in hopes of getting a search warrant for the residence of James Dyshaun Hawkins, who had been arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia — “digital scales … with a white powder residue on them,” according to the affidavit — during a traffic stop two days earlier. Police also seized $800 cash found in Hawkins’ car.

In the affidavit, Peck noted that a Kansas Department of Corrections parole officer said she’d heard from several sources that Hawkins, who was no longer on parole, was dealing drugs. And, he wrote, the police department’s drug enforcement unit had taken several reports of Hawkins dealing drugs.

Also, Peck wrote that a confidential informant had assured him Hawkins “kept a fairly good quantity of crack cocaine in (Hawkins’) residence because anytime the C.I. (informant) has wanted any cocaine, Hawkins has been able to get them any quantity they have needed.”

The confidential informant’s credibility, Peck wrote, was “unquestioned.”

Several times in the affidavit, Peck referred to the informant as “they,” rather than “he” or “she.”

Judge Paula Martin signed the search warrant. On Nov. 3, 2001, Peck searched Hawkins’ house, found drugs and arrested Hawkins, who was later charged with possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Informant information

In December 2002, Hawkins’ court-appointed attorney, Jim Rumsey, filed a motion challenging the informant’s credibility and asking Malone to identify his client’s accuser.

Malone arranged a meeting with Peck and Assistant Dist. Atty. David Zabel to hear their arguments against identifying the confidential informant. During the meeting, Malone learned:

¢ 6News video: Officer to appeal dismissal¢ Join the discussion on our community forum¢ Another Peck case dismissed (2-8-03)¢ Informant steps up to defend suspended policeman (2-2-03)¢ Court tosses tainted cases (1-31-03)¢ City’s top drug cop suspended (1-28-03)¢ 6News video: Top drug officer suspended (1-28-03)

• Though identified in the affidavit as “they,” the confidential informant was one person.
• Another officer had questioned the informant’s reliability.
• The informant was known to use crack cocaine.
• Peck had arranged for some of the informant’s traffic tickets — for speeding and driving on a suspended license — to be dismissed.
• A marijuana joint found in the informant’s possession during a traffic stop had not resulted in the informant being charged with possession.

Peck assured Malone he had checked the informant’s background and found “traffic-type things, driving on a suspended license … a lot of domestic-type things. A lot of failure to appears and failure to complies. There was a theft.”

As the meeting drew to a close, Malone asked Zabel to run a second background check on the informant.

Zabel’s check found the informant had been convicted four times for theft, three times for drunken driving, once for forgery and once for passing bad checks.

In a decision released Jan. 24, Malone declined to identify the informant but wrote that Peck’s search-warrant affidavit contained “intentional or reckless statements, and that there are material omissions concerning the veracity of the confidential informant.”

Because the information used in obtaining the search warrant was incomplete and misleading, Malone wrote he had no choice but to suppress the evidence seized during the search.

A week later, the district attorney’s office dropped its case against Hawkins, citing insufficient evidence. Three other cases were later dropped by the district attorney because Peck was the key witness.

A matter of protection

Peck denied trying to mislead judges Martin or Malone.

He used “they,” he said, because he didn’t want Hawkins or Rumsey to know the informant was male or female. And he didn’t list all of his informant’s felonies because that, too, would shed too much light on his informant’s identity.

“I was trying to protect my informant,” Peck said. “I was worried about his safety. I didn’t want somebody to be able to look at that affidavit and, you know, connect the dots and figure out who he is.”

Peck said his superiors in the department and the district attorney’s office were aware of the informant’s identity and his past.

“They all signed off on the affidavit and nobody said, ‘Hey, you need to say “he” instead of “they,”‘ or ‘You need to put in more about his past,'” Peck said. “If they had, I would have because, like I said, I didn’t think I was doing anything wrong.”

In an earlier interview, Cobb said the department was investigating whether Peck’s superiors erred in approving the affidavit.

Peck said he characterized his informant’s credibility as “unquestioned” because previous information supplied had been consistently accurate.

Peck said he blamed neither Olin nor Malone for his troubles.

“Everybody in this — them and me — is doing what they think is right,” he said. “I know I didn’t try to mislead anyone.”