TheAgitator.com
History Repeats in Chesapeake
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008WAVY TV has an interview with James Broccoletti, the attorney for Ryan Frederick. The video also contains excerpts from the station’s jailhouse interview with Frederick himself. Even those short clips are pretty wrenching. The state supreme court is also apparently appointing a special judge for the trial.
Another news station notes that Frederick’s case bears some resemblance to a case some 36 years ago, in which a police officer was killed after mistakenly breaking into an elderly couple’s home. At least in that case, prosecutors had the good sense to not bring charges. At the time, way back in 1972, the Virginian-Pilot ran an editorial that included the following passage:
Faulty information is one thing, a faulty approach is another. Policeman storming into a house of sleeping occupants, who being legally armed is a matter of record, would seem to be an act of desperation. Surely the ordinary householder in an average neighborhood would not expect to be the target of such tactics, whether they meet the law’s standards or not. And if storming has been the doctrine for narcotics raids, perhaps subtlety now should be explored.
Well, that’s depressing. It’s been (at least) 36 years since someone realized that these tactics are horrifically flawed and the raids continue unabated – indeed, they have increased in frequency.
How many more years and how many more lives will be wasted before the madness is stopped?
That editorial quote, though, reads in a slightly different light when you consider that the 1972 raid was conducted at 3 a.m., as opposed to Mr. Frederick’s at 8:30 p.m. Any rational homeowner is going to react negatively to unexpected visitors in the middle of the night, especially if they’re breaking in, and the police should know to expect that. Here we know the search warrant was executed at a much more reasonable hour, we know it was not a no-knock warrant, and we know the officers were uniformed, but that’s about it as far as details go. (I’ll add that I think it’s fairly safe to conclude that the police fired no shots in return, because that almost certainly would get mentioned.) How can we talk about raid tactics being flawed when the only tactics that we know were definitely used were reasonable ones?
The police obviously trusted an informant they shouldn’t have, and I wholeheartedly agree that prosecutors are overreacting. And maybe future information will make the police look worse. But I think it’s being taken for granted right now that the execution of the warrant was SWAT-like, when there’s not much evidence to support that conclusion. While it’s always possible to find ways that a search warrant could have been carried out better after the fact, it’s entirely possible (if not likely) that this was a perfectly reasonable warrant execution that, through an unfortunate confluence of events, resulted in an officer’s death.
They were reasonable if and ONLY if they had reason to believe Mr. Frederick was violent and dangerous.
We’re talking about a guy who had no record beyond some traffic infractions and no history of violence (against the police or anyone else).
Therefore a paramilitary-style raid, no-knock or otherwise, doesn’t seem “reasonable” to me.
Therefore a paramilitary-style raid,
That’s the kind of assumption I’m talking about: what evidence is there that it WAS paramilitary-style? They were wearing protective armor, which frankly I’d expect officers to do when executing ANY search warrant. But that’s it. What did the police actually DO in executing the warrant that we know for a fact was unreasonable?
I would say that busting through someone’s door at ANY hour of the day or night is paramilitary-style and unreasonable. That’s not an assumption…that’s what they did…starting kicking in Mr. Frederick’s door. What’s normal about that? Would you be A-Okay if someone lied about you and then the police, without any proper investigation, came barreling through your door at 8:30PM one night? Wouldn’t you say, “Why didn’t you just knock and say you had a search warrant?”Ryan Frederick is guy who would have answered the door and surrendered if they had knocked….this is a guy who says he didn’t want any trouble. And so what if he goes to bed at 8:30pm??? When you have to get up very early in the morning to go to work, many people go to bed early at night. Or is the police department now going to appoint the proper time for people to go to bed at night?
Loren, your an apologist. Ever heard “Legal don’t make it right”? It’s not just a corny redneck saying. A supposedly highly educated, highly trained, police force would not and SHOULD never rely on an informant to do their job for them. By default, the errors are on the police side, they were wrong to do what they did, legal or not. If you disagree, take your moral and ethics barometer in for recalibrating.
That you expect your police to wear body armor and to be carrying automatic weapons shows just how much you have strayed off the pat of “serving and protecting” the public to “terrorizing and betraying” the public. Higher standards, not less has always been the answer and that higher RIGHT reasoning has never been enforced.
Loren, how ‘paramilitary’ do you want it? Just a little bit ‘para’ or a whole lot of ‘para’? How much ‘para’ is too much ‘para’? Evidently, it could never be enough for some people.
The DrugWar has brought about a fracturing of the trust that once was accorded to police. I recall distinctly when I was very small my mother telling me that if I was ever lost or in trouble to look for the men (or women) in the blue uniform and they’d help me. Wouldn’t dare do that now, as I’d immediately be sized up as a potential ‘collar’.
Because of this distrust, and partly because of the “Us vs. Them” attitude fostered by what amounts to forcing police to fight a kind of ‘guerilla’ war’, things have gotten to the point where police behave like invading armies. With such tragedies as this becoming more common all the time. (And as to the attitude that this kind of thinking fosters, 25 years ago, I overheard an Ocean City policeman stating that there were only two kinds of civilians: @$$holes and victims, the implication being that there was no distinction, as you had to be an @$$hole to ‘allow’ yourself to become a victim. This, from someone who was paid by the very same people he disparaged.)
And let us not also forget that thanks in large part to propagandizing courtesy of the media, most citizens have become conditioned to immediate obedience to police directives (whether warranted or not) and thus criminals are impersonating police – and using police tactics such as ‘dynamic entry’ – in order to gain access to people’s homes when otherwise they could not. Fear of that has led to where homeowners can’t be sure who is at the door. That’s seems to be what happened with Kathryn Johnston in Atlanta and apparently what has happened here.
All thanks to the DrugWar. Paramilitary police are a common feature in authoritarian societies, especially in Third World countries. To adopt such practices here is a sign something is seriously wrong in this country, and we need to figure if the ‘cure’ is worse than the ‘disease’.
Brit,
I would say that busting through someone’s door at ANY hour of the day or night is paramilitary-style and unreasonable.
Then how would you propose police execute a search warrant when nobody comes to the door? Shrug and leave a note saying they’ll come back later, like a marshal delivering process? If no one opens the door, the police will have to use force to get in. A forcible entry, in and of itself, is not paramilitary-style. It happens every time the targeted address is unoccupied.
Ryan Frederick is guy who would have answered the door and surrendered if they had knocked…And so what if he goes to bed at 8:30pm???
Because if he was admittedly asleep, then he’s not the best witness as to whether they did or did not knock or announce. The police said they did. He says he didn’t hear it. The simplest and most straightforward interpretation of this evidence is that they did, and he slept through it, only to wake up when the police started making more noise breaking the door.
Could the police have knocked or announced louder? Yes, perhaps. But that’s getting pretty far afield from paramilitary allegations, and more into the realm of practical procedure.
I don’t think Loren is entirely wrong here. Here is _some_ of what we don’t know:
1) Did the police know Mr. Frederick was at home? If so, how?
2) What efforts did police take to notify Mr. Frederick that they were present?
3) How long did the police wait after notifying Mr. Frederick of their presence before they started to break down the door?
4) Did the police observe any activity that led them to believe Mr. Frederick was destroying evidence?
5) Who made the decision to knock down Mr. Frederick’s door and why?
6) Why did the police choose to serve the warrant at 8:00 p.m.?
7) What types of weapons were the police carrying?
8) Did the police have their weapons drawn?
9) Were bright lights being directed at Mr. Frederick’s house?
10) How many police officers were present?
Without this type of information, I don’t think we can accurately characterize this as a “paramilitary type raid.”
While I think that the information available to date indicates that this was a poorly planned and executed search, there’s still a lot we don’t know. If it turns out that the confidential informant was the burglar from a few days before, then the police should have known that there was a strong likelihood that Mr. Frederick would be nervous and might react unpredictably. Sigh. I feel sorry for everyone invovled here.
Leshrac,
A supposedly highly educated, highly trained, police force would not and SHOULD never rely on an informant to do their job for them.
Huh. I thought I was sufficiently clear that the police shouldn’t have relied on an informant when I said “The police obviously trusted an informant they shouldn’t have.” In case I wasn’t, I agree with you on this. Police should always do their best to double-check and verify informants’ information. My dispute is only over the rhetoric and charges being thrown at the officers for how they conducted themselves while executing the warrant at Frederick’s house.
That you expect your police to wear body armor and to be carrying automatic weapons
Who said ANYTHING about automatic weapons? Or weapons at all? I didn’t. You just made it up and attributed it to me.
I expect police to have protective armor because that’s purely defensive on their part. It doesn’t affect the occupant at all, and it protects the officers from violent responses, whether intentional or accidental. Had Officer Shivers been positioned differently, his armor would have saved his life. If the officer in 1972 had protective armor, he probably would have lived too. If anything, this incident goes to show why officers SHOULD have protective armor, not why they SHOULDN’T.
kaptinemo,
Loren, how ‘paramilitary’ do you want it? Just a little bit ‘para’ or a whole lot of ‘para’? How much ‘para’ is too much ‘para’?
Why be vague about things? I asked specifically for ways in which the search of Frederick’s house was ‘para,’ because so far, I’m coming up close to empty. If there are factors I’ve missed, share ‘em. It’s not that I agree with paramilitary tactics; it’s that I think a lot of people are presuming they’re here, when the evidence does not yet show them.
And maybe further investigations will show that the police parked around the corner, quietly announced themselves, and only waited 5 seconds until they started busting down the door. Maybe. But right now, what little we know about the search tends to suggest a good search (NOT a good warrant) gone bad. I’m not in favor of para searches; I’m against unwarranted presumptions.
Kukulkan,
I don’t think Loren is entirely wrong here. Here is _some_ of what we don’t know:
Thanks. That’s a good list, and to add one item:
11) Did the officers park in Frederick’s driveway/in front of his house? Were they driving marked police vehicles?
I feel sorry for everyone invovled here.
Same here.
How about we demand that police do a little work before putting the public and themselves in potentially dangerous situations?
You know like actually investigate FIRST!
Most informants are only doing so to beat other charges, or so it seems.
Oh and don’t forget that Fredricks had two dogs going crazy at the same time, it is the dogs that woke him up.
Here’s a thought – how about the police roll up to the door and, say, knock? Then they can say, “hello! This is the police! Please respond.” or “open up!” if you prefer. Maybe they could knock a little louder or use an ingenious “door bell” device to announce their presence at greater volume?
Then they wait. If a minute passes and they don’t hear, “I’m coming! Hold on a moment! Let me get my robe on!” or something to indicate that they’ve been heard they can use this fantastic new telephonic technology and call the resident.
Barring that, there are bullhorns available – airhorns even, should one wish to wake the dead.
Unless there’s imminent danger, there is no justifiable reason for bashing in someone’s door, regardless of time of day.
I don’t know how many door bells and phone calls I’ve missed in my lifetime because I was sleeping or otherwise indisposed for a few moments. I guess I’m lucky none of those missed visitors were police. I’m also lucky to have two dogs that bark to notify me of visitors. At best, they’d awaken me so I can rush to the door – at worst, they’ll provide a delay for the few moments it will take for them to get shot.
Somebody stop the insanity train… I want to get off.
Any chance the informant or judge that singed the search warrant would be charged with Felony murder? Maybe the garden supply shop owner, then? Ryan’s mother – for the chain of all events that led to the shooting can surely be traced back to the moment of conception. Right?
For those of you who haven’t been reading, the neighbors who did witness the whole incident said the police ran up and starting kicking the door in without announcing themselves. The police claim they announced. Now, which group (neighbors or police) have a vested interest in their claim? There’s little doubt the cops lied, the neighbors have absolutely nothing to gain from lying.
Also, again for those unaware, 8:30PM is still well past dark right now. I’m not sure if their uniforms would be visible, or if it would matter. The guy had every right to shoot whatever was breaking his door down.
I think we can infer more than enough by the statements of the shooter and the neighbor. The dogs going nuts when the cops “knocked” is what initially woke him up. There was little to no time before they started forcing their way inside. The neighbor who was outside heard them breaking the door down but did not hear them announce themselves as police.
When the officers went to his door they had already made up their mind that he was a dealer and they were going to force their way in regardless of whether he answered the knock or not. According to the TV station report they used a ram to open the door, you don’t bring one of those along unless you plan on using it.
According to the Pilot interview with the dead officers friends: http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/fellow-officer-recalls-shock-he-felt-when-his-friend-was-shot
Quote: The two men signed up for the midnight-to-8 a.m. shift, and they had a friendly competition going, always trying to be the first to find drugs or a stolen car.
This was a game to them and they were willing to cut corners to get the glory. I’m sorry this officers dead mostly because of the poor kid sitting in a cell looking at life in prison, but this officer brought it upon himself.
Bronwyn,
Unless there’s imminent danger, there is no justifiable reason for bashing in someone’s door, regardless of time of day.
So what should the police do once they conclude the house is unoccupied?
Apart from that point, I agree that police should normally make efforts to alert a potentially sleeping occupant. But I’d go for the loudest and most conspicuous means of announcing first, and wouldn’t simply use them in succession, especially moving from least (knocking) to most (airhorn) alerting. Busting in after 10 seconds creates danger for the circumstances when the occupant is innocent, and should be avoided when possible. But requiring the police to stand around for 3-4 minutes endangers the police in the circumstances when the occupant himself is dangerous (which, frankly, describes a lot of search warrant situations) or when evidence could be destroyed or concealed (which describes a lot of others). There has to be a medium that protects the occupants’ rights and interests, but doesn’t nullify the effectiveness of a surprise search.
Loren – One of the early articles made it clear that the cops are lying about announcing (or they announced so quietly that they might as well not have). One of Frederick’s neighbors was outside during the raid and says he did not hear an announcement.
Well, I should refresh before posting… Tokin42 already made the neighbor point.
Loren – Maybe if the house is unoccupied the cops could just wait for someone to come home. In a case like this, since you agree they shouldn’t rely on an informant, they should have put up some surveillance and known what Frederick’s habits were.
Michael,
For those of you who haven’t been reading, the neighbors who did witness the whole incident said the police ran up and starting kicking the door in without announcing themselves.
Are you referring to this story? Because that’s not what the neighbors said. And none of them appear to have actually witnessed the whole incident.
The closest statement to the one you describe is Jon McReynolds, who describes hearing the gunshot, but says he didn’t hear any sirens or warnings. The story says he lives two doors down, but doesn’t say he witnessed the police arrive, or witnessed them at the door. It doesn’t even say whether he was inside or outside when it happened. (Personally, if police were knocking and yelling at the door of the house two down from mine, and I was inside, I wouldn’t hear it either. But I would hear a gunshot.) He definitely does NOT say he saw the police run up and start kicking in the door.
Now I’ve looked for other stories citing Frederick’s neighbors, but I haven’t found any. If there are others I’m not aware of, please share. Particularly any that actually cite neighbors who witnessed the whole incident and saw the police run up and start kicking the door in without announcing themselves, like you describe. If such quotes exist, then I might consider changing my position.
Matt,
One of Frederick’s neighbors was outside during the raid and says he did not hear an announcement.
Nope; you’re conflating two separate accounts. It was neighbor Sandra Brooks who the article reported was outside. But she was not quoted as saying anything about whether or not she heard an announcement.
It was neighbor Jon McReynolds who said he didn’t hear any warnings. But the article did not state that he was outside.
Wow, Loren, I have to say I just don’t get you at all! You say:
“A forcible entry, in and of itself, is not paramilitary-style. It happens every time the targeted address is unoccupied.”
Yes, Loren, a forcible entry where the police kick in your door IS paramilitary style. Whether the house is occupied or not doesn’t change the style of entry. But whether the home is occupied or not very much changes the possible outcome of the “raid.” An empty home will probably get trashed. In an occupied home, the danger is that people will and have been killed. This was a botched paramilitary style raid and the fact is, the police had no business being in Mr. Frederick’s home in the first place. Their information was wrong, they did not investigate the accuracy of the “tip” and they are solely responsible for this debacle. The police created this disaster….and now one good officer’s life was taken and one good man’s life is ruined.
You say:
“Because if he was admittedly asleep, then he’s not the best witness as to whether they did or did not knock or announce. The police said they did. He says he didn’t hear it. The simplest and most straightforward interpretation of this evidence is that they did, and he slept through it, only to wake up when the police started making more noise breaking the door.”
And that is exactly why these raids are so outrageous, Loren. You have a person in bed, blasted out of a sleep, who probably DIDN’T hear any “announcement”. And once the person has been blasted out of bed, he is supposed to be coherent and able to grasp that it is the police (our protectors!) and not some thugs who are crashing into his house.???? What a stupid and dangerous practice the police are employing! Do you think that all people who are shocked awake deal with it very well? Especially, when they know they aren’t criminals and they don’t expect to be having anything to do with the police and the wrong side of the law.This wasn’t the local Drug Cartel with armed guards surrounding their compound. Those are the people that might be expecting the police! Not Mr. Frederick. And remember now, the police had no business being in the Frederick home in the first place. Again, the police created this mess and I hope this poor kid doesn’t have to pay for it!
Matt,
Maybe if the house is unoccupied the cops could just wait for someone to come home.
Which would mean a legitimate suspect could hamper and potentially defeat a police investigation simply by staying away from home. (Or, since there’s no way for the police to confirm from the outside that a house is truly unoccupied, by simply hiding out and not answering the door.)
What baffles me about this thread is that nobody seems to have posed an obvious question:
Why did not the police detain Mr. Frederick outside the house and present him with the warrant?
In other words, what compelling interest was there in ensuring that he be in the house at the time of the raid? In a country where vast amounts of the citizenry are armed, is not coralling the suspect outside and then executing the warrant a preferable plan? It was a question posed of the ATF when they could have arrested David Koresh on a country road, and it did not receive a satisfactory answer there, either. But it at least there it was asked.
Another question that the police should have to answer: why have such a rushed raid at all? He was accused of having a grow-op; it’s not as if he can flush a whole grow-op down the john.
One final question: Am I the only person who believes a key reason for keeping marijuana illegal despite its ubiquity is its ubiquity? Pretty much half of all houses are going to have a joint or residue thereof inside. The prohibition against that drug thus serves as a Get Out Of Jail Free card for police misconduct because they’ve got a near-sure-fire criminal charge for the occupants. “Hey, you can’t say we’re the bad guys here, he’s the criminal! We found drugs in the house!”
Loren,
Even assuming that the police did everything in a reasonable manner, the primary focus should be that one man is dead and another man’s life is in jeopardy because the police thought he was growing some plants and helping people get high.
And that is disgusting.
What baffles me about this thread is that nobody seems to have posed an obvious question:
Why did not the police detain Mr. Frederick outside the house and present him with the warrant?
How is that possibly an obvious question? If I’m reading you right, as a matter of policy, it’s just as silly as the notion that police shouldn’t be allowed to search an unoccupied building.
Either you’re suggesting that police should have to potentially waste hours or days waiting until a suspect approaches his own property before they can execute a search warrant (even though any actually guilty suspect would keep on driving once he sees police in front of his place), or that they effectively arrest the suspect despite not having an arrest warrant.
In other words, what compelling interest was there in ensuring that he be in the house at the time of the raid?
I covered this in another thread. On the part of the homeowner, it’s in his interest to be present when the police are searching in order to supervise it, and to ensure against potential police misconduct. And it’s in the police’s interest to have the suspect present so that he can be more easily detained and arrested if incriminating evidence is found.
Also, as indicated by Kukulkan’s #1 outstanding question regarding the search, it’d be nice to know whether the police believed Frederick’s home to be occupied or not when they started breaking through the door.
It was a question posed of the ATF when they could have arrested David Koresh on a country road, and it did not receive a satisfactory answer there, either.
Well, here they didn’t have an arrest warrant for Ryan Frederick, so they couldn’t arrest him. It’s that simple.
Another question that the police should have to answer: why have such a rushed raid at all?
See, this is supposition right now. Who said it was rushed? There are no witness accounts that say how long the police were outside Frederick’s door. Maybe it was 15 seconds, maybe it was five minutes. We don’t know.
If you’re talking about rushing to search, though, we have a little more evidence. According to the warrant, the informant originally gave police Frederick’s name back in November. He then claimed to have seen Frederick’s operation around January 13. The warrant was applied for and granted on January 15. And the search was actually conducted on January 17. That doesn’t strike me as a rush to bust down a guy’s door. (By contrast, if you recall, in Kathryn Johnston’s case it was only a matter of hours between applying for the warrant and showing up at her door.)
However, it seems to me that the biggest oversight in the investigation process was the failure to have a controlled buy. The informant specifically named Frederick months ago, and the officer verified Frederick’s name and address as being accurate. But the informant just claimed to have been inside Frederick’s house, and didn’t produce any actual marijuana supposedly purchased from Frederick. Since the informant claimed to have already had access, it would have beneficial to the warrant and overall better procedure to have the informant engage in a controlled buy prior to searching the property.
Loren, you are an apologist and a disingenuous one at that.
First, the notion that they wait until he approach his own home is “silly” isn’t silly at all. Police conduct covert surveillance of furtherance of their objectives all the time. Your response seems to imply that watching the house and waiting for him to come home or come out involves Constable Plod standing in the middle of the road with a notebook.
Second, you deliberately conflate the notion of him being in the house with him being present for the search. I made it clear that I was talking about confronting him outside, which is why I used the colloquial word “corral” (albeit misspelled, oops) rather than “arrest”.
Third, you can dance all you want, but this was a crash-bang raid. There does not seem to be any evidence that there was a risk or even a threat of violence from this man. One of the most consistent and accurate points made by Balko here is that just because a person is alleged by an informant to have marijuana it does not naturally follow that they may be armed, dangerous and hostile to the police.
Fourth, the “we need more information” trope is a tired old horse. If you’ve read this blog with any consistency then you know that the “more information” that you seek is in the hands of the police who may have screwed up in the first place and have a vested interest in making sure that their interests are protected.* IF the “more information” that you seek confirms police misconduct they are, in all likelihood, not going to tell you. And even if it does leak out it will likely be ignored by the local prosecution teams. There is also the fact made repeatedly by Balko and ignored by you: if the “more information” exonerates the police they positively race to the microphones to tell the public. The very absence of detail on the conduct of the raid is prima facie evidence that the raid was not conducted properly. If they had been outside knocking for fifteen minutes, as you so hopefully posit, we would have heard it thirty times by now.
Fifth, you note the longer time frame of days in the process. To my eye that reinforces the failure of the police. They had days to get it right, they still did not do so and one of their officers died. This is especially so in light of the previous burglary. (Don’t forget, there has been no denial by the police that the burglary may have been committed by the informer; as noted above, that is telling.) I think you would find it hard to find a cop stupid enough to believe that a person who had a creepy break-in only days before wouldn’t still be jittery. Yet a nervous, tense householder doesn’t seem to have been factored into police thinking.
Sixth, you correctly note that they did not have an arrest warrant for Frederick, and you are correct in noting the failure of a controlled buy. Think about the implications of that: a complete lack of evidence sufficient to lay any charge resulted in an armed raid on a private home.
—————–
* – This is why some Canadian jurisdictions have moved to specialist investigation units in cases of death or serious injury where police officers are involved. Despite the police PR hysteria against such squads, subject officers are rarely charged and even more rarely convicted, but where there is clear wrongdoing such charges are laid and often convictions are obtained: the integrity and independence of inquiry are there and public confidence is much more solid.
Loren, first I would like to thank you for taking the time to be the sole defender of the law enforcement side of the issue. Your positions are consistent with police logic, and are valid within the limited parameters of theorhetical discussion. The real world often throws a little chaos into the mix, though, which runs only makes the situation more volatile.
The usual reasons for search warrant as stated by Loren in post #18 are either that the occupant is dangerous or that evidence was being destroyed. I would posit that the default position for law enforcement in this country should be that citizens without a violent criminal record be considered NOT a threat. There seems to be no reason stated so far that the police thought Frederick dangerous.
To the second rationale of destuction of evidence, a grow operation is not easily dismantled, disposed of or otherwise hidden. Furthermore, the alleged grow op was in a detached garage, which would have been visible to police observation, due to the lack of fencing apparant in the video footage of the property. As such, once the police had determined that Frederick lived alone and/or was home alone, posting an officer at the back door would have prevented any attempt by Frederick destroy evidence in the detached garage when the warrant was served. Since the production charges would be far more serious than the possession charges, any negligible amount he might have flushed would have been inconsequential to the charges, and would had likely netted a destruction of evidence charge if there was any cannabis residue in the vicinity of the toilet.
This incient could have been peaceably resolved if the detectives had simply used knock and talk tactics instead of dynamic entry. Even though many of the arguments Loren has made in the abstract are valid, the detached garage on open proerty guaranteed the preservation of evidence. If the warrant were for weapons, explosives, or some other method of immediate danger and violence, a fast entry to take control of the situation is likely the safest option. But for situations wherein credible threat of violence is not present, the police should knock at the door for several minutes if necessary. Despite protestations of law enforcement, most people answer their door when given time to do so, and the don’t do it with gun in hand.
Given the seemingly shoddy police work here, it is a shame that the citizens of Chesapeake will have to bear the cost of a trial, survivor’s benefits and the incarceration of Mr. Frederick.
Robert Heinlein once wrote that “Stupidity is not illegal, but it is often fatal.” Whether through stupidity, laziness, or the tendency to cut corners to make cases, Det. Shivers is dead through his own choice of actions in how he proceeded with this situation, putting himself in the position to be shot by a man defending his home.
seeker6079,
Loren, you are an apologist and a disingenuous one at that.
Ah, a personal attack on me and my motives. Good show.
First, the notion that they wait until he approach his own home is “silly” isn’t silly at all. Police conduct covert surveillance of furtherance of their objectives all the time. Your response seems to imply that watching the house and waiting for him to come home or come out involves Constable Plod standing in the middle of the road with a notebook.
Police conduct covert surveillance when it’s necessary. Recommending that every search warrant of an unoccupied premises require potentially extended covert surveillance prior to entry is a massive waste of manpower and resources. That’s why it’s silly.
Second, you deliberately conflate the notion of him being in the house with him being present for the search. I made it clear that I was talking about confronting him outside, which is why I used the colloquial word “corral” (albeit misspelled, oops) rather than “arrest”.
Again you impugn my intentions. I stated that I wasn’t sure if I was reading you right, and frankly, I’m even less certain of what you mean here. Because the police need a legal reason to detain a person in such a way that he does not feel free to leave. You seem to be describing such a situation (“corraled” people aren’t free to leave). The mere existence of a search warrant doesn’t authorize the seizure of a person. In objecting to one police procedure, you’ve proposed an even more violative one.
Third, you can dance all you want, but this was a crash-bang raid.
This is my entire point, that people keep painting this as a crash-bang raid, despite pretty minimal evidence at this point to support it. It’s as if the reasoning is in reverse: 1) somebody was killed during a search warrant, 2) search warrants that kill people are often crash-bang raids, 3) ergo this one must have been a crash-bang raid. I’m not saying that it’s NOT one; I’m saying that it’s premature to make that judgment in this case, and that a lot of people don’t seem to realize the implicit leap in logic that’s being made.
The very absence of detail on the conduct of the raid is prima facie evidence that the raid was not conducted properly.
Ah, the absence of evidence to support your position is your evidence. I see now.
This is especially so in light of the previous burglary…I think you would find it hard to find a cop stupid enough to believe that a person who had a creepy break-in only days before wouldn’t still be jittery. Yet a nervous, tense householder doesn’t seem to have been factored into police thinking.
This has been raised before, and I’m suspicious of the logic here. Naturally the police should always run a criminal history of the subject of sought search warrants. But a crime committed AGAINST Mr. Frederick isn’t going to appear on his criminal history. And unless records are seriously cross-indexed in Chesapeake, it’s doubtful it’d appear in any of his other ordinary records. (Do police even keep records indexed by complainant?) Whichever burglary officers dealt with his complaint probably wouldn’t have been the same drug officers who sought the warrant. And expecting officers to research complaints by a suspect prior to seeking a warrant is just kinda odd.
In other words, you’re imputing knowledge on the searching officers that it’s rather likely they didn’t have.
Think about the implications of that: a complete lack of evidence sufficient to lay any charge resulted in an armed raid on a private home.
And what makes you say it was an “armed” raid?
This is why some Canadian jurisdictions have moved to specialist investigation units in cases of death or serious injury where police officers are involved.
And that’s a fantastic idea. If I was a cop, there’s a good chance I’d work IA.
I’m not sure why everyone hates Loren here. S/he is being accused of taking positions that s/he has not. Loren has not said that this was a good raid. To the contrary, Loren acknowledges that the police should not served the search warrant without some attempt to confirm the accuracy of the confidential informant’s allegations. See post #27. Accordingly, Loren acknowledges that the execution of this search warrant was flawed. He is not a police apologist.
Based on my recollection, the only position Loren has taken here is that we do not have enough information to call this a paramilitary type raid. And s/he’s right — we don’t. It is certainly true that the police and AG’s office control all the evidence and that it is suspicious that they have clamped down on the release of information. This creates, at the very least, a perception that something is being hidden. It also gives the police plenty of time to get their stories straight and uniform.
No one has contradicted any of the items on my prior list (post #9) of unknown. Without this information, we cannot conclude the raid was a “crash-bang” raid or similar. Here’s a list of things we do know:
1) In November 2007 a confidential informant gave police Mr. Frederick’s name;
2) Several days before January 17, 2008, Mr. Frederick’s saw evidence that convinced him a burglar had entered his house;
3) Mr. Frederick was frightened by the burglary and purchased a deadbolt;
4) Do we know if Mr. Frederick reported the burglary to police?;
5) The confidential informant saw (or represented he saw) the inside of Mr. Frederick’s house and detached garage on January 13, 2008;
6) The confidential informant told police he saw a significant marijuana growing operation in Mr. Frederick’s detached garage;
7) Mr. Frederick was cultivating Japanese maples for his yard using growing lights;
8) On January 15, 2008, police applied for a warrant to search Mr. Frederick’s house and detached garage;
9) On January 17,2008, Mr. Frederick went to bed early (before 8:00 p.m.) in order to rise early for his job;
10) On January 17, 2008, police conduct a search at approximately 8:30 p.m. pursuant to a search warrant;
11) At least two police officers are present to serve the search warrant while wearing body armor and helmets labeled “Police”;
12) Police statements indicate that they attempted to notify Mr. Frederick of their presence, they describe it as a knock and enter;
13) Sandra Brooks (one of Mr. Frederick’s neighbors) was outside and witnessed the event;
12) Jon McReynolds (a neighbor who lives two doors down) heard police entering Mr. Frederick’s house but did not hear any announcement;
13) Police began to use a battering ram to break through Mr. Frederick’s front door;
14) Mr. Frederick was woken by his dogs’ barking;
15) Mr. Frederick armed himself with a .380 pistol and approached his front door;
16) Mr. Frederick saw a figure crawling through the bottom panel of his front door;
17) Mr. Frederick fired at the figure (police later find three shell casings) crawling through the door, and then retreated to his bedroom to call police;
18) Mr. Frederick hit Detective Jarrod Shivers in the upper arm (likely the brachial artery) and chest;
19) Det. Shivers does not die instantly, but screams loudly in pain while neighbor Brooks watches in horror;
20) Mr. Frederick realizes that the police are out in front of his house and surrenders without further incident;
21) While surrendering to police, Mr. Frederick stated that he thought Detective Shivers was a burglar because his house was burglarized several days earlier. The police officer stated he was aware of the burglary;
22) Five days after the incident, the police announce that they found marijuana in Mr. Frederick’s residence and that they seized a shoe, a flashlight, a television, a pry bar, and a door. Police also announce they found several lights;
23) Mr. Frederick’s is charged with first degree murder, use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and first offense possession of marijuana (a misdemeanor).
Although there may be some relevant public information that I missed, the above information does not indicate a paramilitary style raid. Since the police described it as a knock and enter, it seems likely that the police knocked on the door, said “Police!” and started to break down the door.
Although I don’t think we can label this a paramilitary style raid, I am comfortable concluding that this search was handled improperly. First, it appears police made no effort to confirm the accuracy of the confidential informant’s allegations. Second, if the police knew the CI was a burglar, they should have known Mr. Frederick might be “jumpy.” Third, the CI described this as a significant growing operation in the detached garage — a knock and enter of the residence seems inappropriate.
Again, this is a tragedy. One person has died and the lives of many other people have been destroyed because a CI gave police faulty information and the police conducted an overly aggressive search based on the erroneous information.
seeker6079: And you can always plant drugs after the raid to justify your actions
Kukulkan Good Post
But however strongly I may disagree with Loren, I have no hatred for this person. He/she is entitled to and has the right to express his/her opinion freely and should continue to do so.
I am in the position of knowing someone who unjustly suffered a SWAT raid that was totally unwarranted. If the police hadn’t arrived at the home in the middle of the night while this person was asleep and if the person had heard the police “announcement” the door would have answered. The police crashed into the home, throwing those grenades, almost killing one family member and setting a room on fire. Total paramilitary operation. Totally unjust and unnecessary.
If the Frederick “raid” didn’t start out as a paramilitary operation it ended up as one when the police came crashing through the door.
In your final paragraph you state:
Again, this is a tragedy. One person has died and the lives of many other people have been destroyed because a CI gave police faulty information and the police conducted an overly aggressive search based on the erroneous information.
I agree with you, but I would have added ……And the police did little to no investigation to 100% verify that information.
See this link for another story about Ryan. The community is starting to speak up. It says a lot when people in the neighborhood sign statements of support for Ryan at the same location as Detective Shivers’ memorial site.
http://www.myfoxhamptonroads.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5701488&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Thank you, Kulkulkan, for a lucid recital. It did make me ponder, though, on perception. I can’t speak for other people, but my own gut take is that if I were seeing somebody crawling into my home I would assume that it wasn’t a police officer. My initial expectation would certainly have been that cops don’t crawl in, they barge in yelling loudly, and teams. I wonder if Fredericks went through a similar gut-take and whether that played a role in his firing.
The posters here are clear on their belief that their sadness at Det. Shivers’ death need not preclude the possibility that he and his colleagues totally botched the raid. We can mourn his death and yet still be aware that his own error may have led to it. The two are not incompatible and the people here have been correct in taking those two positions.