TheAgitator.com
Breaking News in the Ryan Frederick Case
Thursday, September 18th, 2008Tomorrow morning, it looks like the Virginian-Pilot will confirm what I first reported back in June: Two men broke into Ryan Frederick’s house three nights before the police raided his home, and one of them was likely the informant mentioned in the police warrant. It also means that the probable cause for the warrant was obtained illegally, a fact police neglected to mention in the warrant.
I guess I can now also reveal that the informant mentioned in the article, Renaldo Turnbull, Jr., was also the man I spoke with in the Chesapeake Jail last June–I referred to him in the post as “Reggie.”
Turnbull has also said some other pretty damning things about how the Chesapeake narcotics police conduct their drug investigations, including that they knew ahead of time and approved of the break-in to Frederick’s home. He has also said the police routinely asked he and Steven (the other informant) asked them to break into homes to collect evidence.
Of course, Turnbull isn’t likely to say any of these things anymore, now.
This raises all sorts of interesting questions. I’ll have more tomorrow.
UPDATE: The full story is now live.
It’s really baffling that the article is written as if Turnbull’s statements bolster the prosecution’s case.
The case against Frederick relies partially on the accounts of burglars. Prosecutors now say Frederick, 29, knew the police were coming. Turnbull provided similar details to the newspaper.
The rest of the article says nothing about that. If you have evidence then out with it guys.
Excellent scoop, Radley. There are some really awful revelations here. Breaking in to gather evidence! Jesus Christ, who is in charge of the Chesapeake Narcs, G. Gordon Liddy? I learned about the “fruit of the poison tree” concept back in law enforcement classes at my junior college. It seems this rather elementary concept has been obscured by the drug war.
I’d like to point out the similarities between Jarrod Shivers and the 3 Atlanta police officers who shot and killed Kathryn Johnston in 2006. In both cases, the cops aggressively sought a warrant without any concern as to the the validity of the evidence. When they got the warrant, they did no follow-up work to check that they actually had a valid reason for violating the privacy of Kathryn Johnston/Ryan Frederick. In both cases, they also chose to execute the warrant in a “home invasion” style, rather than knocking on the door, presenting the subject with the warrant, and calmly conducting the search. The cases diverge in the results. In the Kathryn Johnston raid, the subject of the raid was killed, and the cops involved are now in jail. In the Ryan Frederick raid, Jarrod Shivers was killed.
Apparently, since Jarrod Shivers was killed that night, it is unacceptable to say anything about him other than that he was a brave officer who was tragically killed in the line of duty. This seems wrong to me. If the officers who killed Kathryn Johnston are scumbags, then so was Jarrod Shivers.
Excellent work. As an aside, is this the son of the former NFL player Renaldo Turnbull? Not that common of a name you know. Hopefully this will shed some light on the tctics of the police in this case.
And if the informant DOES testify…I’m sure they will quickly work to discredit him as an unreliable source of information…and they will fail to see the irony and hypocrisy of it….seriously.
It’s interesting that Turnbull apparently confirmed the police story that (presumably) he had been told by Frederick that Frederick knew the police were coming, while when he spoke to Radley he said he didn’t personally know Frederick, and failed to mention any threatening statements Frederick made by phone…back when it would presumably have been fresher in his memory.
Maybe I’m reading something wrong here, but it sounds to me like the guy has changed his story, and probably not of his own accord.
Jim, that was my impression, too. How does the newspaper think this helps the prosecution. Even the title of the article is “Informant’s story matches prosecution’s allegation”, as though that is supporting evidence.
How does having a the testimony of a man who has every reason to repeat any lie the cops give him bolster their case? And, it goes again to strengthen the defense claim that Frederick had reason to assume people breaking into his house were (non-police) criminals, since now the police witness is confirming the previous break-in.
I would normally at least discount the headline somewhat as the person writing the headlines in physical newspapers isn’t the person who writes the article. (I don’t know what the case is in an article like this that may not appear in the print edition.) The headline-writer might be following the normal (and very bad) procedure in crime cases, and assuming the police are being honest. But, using the “cop killer” label in the article itself is deliberate, so I am not so sure this isn’t the paper rolling over for the prosecution…
These “informants” will say exactly what the cops tell them to. They’ll have a story rehearsed where the cops come off looking completely innocent. Something like they broke in on their own to loot the place, were later caught by the cops and told them about the pot in hopes of a lighter sentence. They will say it exactly as instructed because their lives literally depend on it.
As long as the two “informants” repeat their cop provided stories (and they will) on the stand I don’t see how it will help Mr. Frederick (unfortunately).
I wonder if the claim is going to be that these guys burglarized ryans garage without police knowledge or approval and later got busted for something else and in exchange for not being charged, they mentioned what they saw in ryans garage? If they claim the police didnt ask them to burglarize the place and they did it of their own free will and then told the police what they saw, the warrant will stand as valid, wont it?
Will radley be called as a witness by the defense?
Just FYI — I think the paper has been sitting on this story for some time, waiting on some corroborating information to emerge. When the prosecution trotted out the “burglar” story last week, that may have been what they needed. If you read the headline in that light, it sort of implies that the prosecution has now confirmed much of what Turnbull has said, not necessarily that Turnbull’s story helps the prosecution (it does in some respect, but it could prove devastating in another).
It’ll be interesting to see how much detail the article goes into tomorrow. Turnbull has told at least two people the story about the police encouraging these break-ins.
I’m interested to see how Ebert is going to finesse this. He wants to admit evidence from the “burglars” that they found plants and that Frederick made threats, but if he admits that one of the the burglars was the informant, he has to explain how and when the police knew that the informant illegally broke into Frederick’s home. Which then calls into question the legitimacy of the warrant.
” Something like they broke in on their own to loot the place, were later caught by the cops and told them about the pot in hopes of a lighter sentence. ”
I was busy typing when u posted that, but im betting its gonna be along that line as well. Up til now i was thinking that mebbe ryan was growing weed in november when it was mentioned info first came to the police but since it was january when the raid took place there was no more weed.
#9 — I asked a Virginia defense attorney that very question. Apparently, if the police knew the probable cause for the warrant came via an illegal burglary, they were obligated to include that information on the warrant. I don’t see how Ebert can say the police learned about the marijuana from these “burglars,” but didn’t know at the time that they obtained via a burglary. There’s no mention of a burglary anywhere in the warrant.
The other problem is that the warrant states that the informant had been working for the police for a few months. Turnbull told me the same thing — that he and “Steven” had been working for the cops for a while. That should be easy enough for Frederick’s attorney to check out.
If they’d both been working for the cops for some time, the cops are at the very least guilty of working with informants who were committing burglaries while on the police payroll. They either knew about it, and were part of a criminal conspiracy, or they didn’t, in which case they’re incompetent. Of course, “Steven” was picked up for credit card charges nine days before the raid (which was likely why he cut a deal to tip the cops off to Frederick). So incompetence is already probably a given, here.
I gotta disagree with Johnny Appleseed regarding Jarrod Shivers. For all we know, he was just doing his job. His superiors, OTOH, and those who oversaw the informants and lied on warrants, are scumbags.
Radley: excellent work.
One question from the last VA Pilot article: the prosecution was saying Frederick had the marijuana and got rid of it within a few days. If he had such a large operation (and not just japanese maples), why isnt there other evidence of sales, or of him getting rid of the drugs? It would seem a pretty big hole in the prosecution’s argument.
As I read the story, it sounds fairly clear that the police not only knew these guys were committing burglaries, but were urging them to commit burglaries in the hopes of turning up evidence.
I don’t know, Radley, it sounds like you’re setting yourself up for a subpoena from the defense. You’ve only got hearsay, but I think if Turnbull’s testimony differs from what he said to you, they can bring it in.
Now having read the article it sounds like the cops are not worried about the validity of the search warrant, or the drug charges. They don’t care if that’s thrown out, they want him for killing a cop. I suspect even if the whole thing was illegal this poor guy will still be found guilty for the killing if they can just get the informants to stick to the absolutely ridiculous “I got something for them” bullshit.
I was thinking the same thing Windy. Of course, I can’t remember when you can use extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness (I always have to look it up). However, it looks to me like the newspaper may actually have an earlier interview with the burglar, which would be “more reliable” (as opposed to the less reliable burglar/thief).
I’d like to see some serious federal level prosecution for the cops if the police were using burglars as proxies for illegal searches.
“Serious” federal prosecution is the key Chris in PA. IMHO cops in the Ms. Kathryn Johnson case ran toward federal charges when only receiving 10 and 12 years in a plea for their part. The fed sends these guys to places with handball courts, not lockdowns with controlled movement and food not fit for a dog.
Sure, SJE, my boss is always making me set puppies on fire. I’m a great guy, but he’s a real jerk. I sure wish he’d stop making me do that.
Has anyone ever said “I was just doing my job” or your variant, “he was just doing his job” in reference to something that wasn’t morally reprehensible, whether it was their “job” or not?
I’d also add that it’s NOT the job of the police to violate the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, regardless of what their bosses may tell them.
All this over a little bit of grass? Unreal.
Renaldo Turnbull, Jr had better start worrying, because in Maryand they strangle inmates, and he may be 1 interview away from that point right now.
Ryan is probably safe, because of the deep controversy in this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/19/inmate.death.ap/index.html
Chris,
Nope. No federal involvement in this case. They are too busy prosecuting the makers of porn films.
SusanK and Windy,
Radley probably won’t be called in to testify. Extrinsic evidence used to prove a lack of credibility is only admissible when the substance of the statement in question goes directly to the legal issue at hand or to be decided. So as an example, Radley could testify if he heard, say, the cop say soemthing different about who fired first, but he could not testify to say the cop lied to him about what patrol car he was in that day.
Seems to me like Turnbull’s testimony may not go to the central issues in this case. As I’ve argued before the legality of the search only goes to what Frederick should have or did know. So Frederick knew he had been robbed, but whether or not the burglars were acting at police instruction is not particularly helpful to determining that issue.
I think there are good arguments the other way, but I’m confident Radley’s in the clear as a witness. If anything the defense lawyer will just ask Turnbull to reconcile inconsistent statements with Radley’s written articles quoting him.
As I’ve been following this case (through Radlye’s great work and linkage skills) I am concerned for Mr. Frederick because his lawyer seems to have been dealt several trump cards but has been reluctant to use them. The fact Mr. Frederick is still sitting in jail is appalling, if his attorney is waiting for the other side to blink then he may stay waiting for a while, considering the stubborness of prosecutors and the blue wall of silence. Maybe he is waiting to put different members of the CPD on the stand and hope for some perjury (which seems a given at this point). One can hope that Mr. Frederick’s attorney is not only lining up his defense but also his civil rights lawsuit against CPD and the officers involved. If I were the attorney I set up some sort of wage and pension garnishment so this LEO’s could think about their stupidity for the rest of their lives.
Gee Bill, thanks for the flaming. If your boss is asking you to set puppies on fire, its pretty obvious not to do it. If your boss is asking you to beat up suspects, or kill people in their homes, or break into their homes, same story. But if you are on a SWAT it is not clear that you are per se doing something wrong. SWAT teams do actually have a limited purpose. Sure, there are a lot of hot-heads and idiots on SWAT teams, and there are a lot of abuses. But the real crime is that the superiors who decide when to use, what tactics to use, etc. Personally, I think that Shivers should have been asking questions about what the SWAT team was doing, and why. But its a bit much to call him a scumbag without more info.
While cries of “scumbag” etc are red meat to the base, it has the opposite effect on everyone else: it merely energizes the opposition, and tends to turn the undecideds against you. Radley’s work is great, but part of its greatness is that it challenges a lot of long held assumptions about law enforcement. There are a lot of people who are willing to assume that Ryan Frederick is scum, and that those who defend him hate all cops and are scum too. I’d like to convince them otherwise.
“Prosecutors now say Frederick, 29, knew the police were coming. They say Frederick told one of the burglars in a threatening phone conversation that he knew police might be coming after him and he would be ready.”
Oh, I can believe that. Really! I call up people who burgle my home and tell them that I’m going to shoot police officers quite often.
Hell, be honest, you pious bastards, so sanctimonious pricks here at The Agitator. What one of us hasn’t>/i> called up a criminal that we don’t know and threatened to ambush police officers? Happens All. The. Time. As a matter of fact, I’m a-bettin’ that some of you are doing it right now.
Whoops. I was so busy confessing my intent to commit capital murder to some hoodlum that I’ve never met that I messed up my HTML tags. Damn.
Just as an aside, I wonder what Turnbull’s cell phone records say. My guess is that the part of the story about them being dumb enough to use the cell phone (to check if he was home) is true, that the bit about Frederick putting two and two together and repeatedly calling him is true. The cops and prosecutors probably sat down with the cell logs and told Turnbull, “that’s when he called you to tell you he knew we were coming, right?”. Equally probable explanation: that Turnbull is stupid, but cunning enough to lie his ass out of trouble, and made up the story knowing that the cops would greet it as a gift from a kind and just god allowing them to put the killer of their colleague away and thus cut him a much-needed deal.
What’s really needed in cases like this where a police officer is killed is an outside federal investigator, rather like the NTSB for air crashes. The latter isn’t afraid to point to pilot error if that’s what it was, but local cops will never say “officer error” caused an unnecessary shooting. (It’d be like asking the pilot’s union to investigate the air crash, no?)
SJE, not so much flaming but strongly disagreeing. If you read the article, Turnbull states that he’d been “working with the police” for several months prior to the raid on Frederick’s house, and that Shivers was one of his contacts, if not the only one.
So I was not saying that he should have questioned his participation on the raid–though he certainly should have. I’m saying that he should have had some serious moral qualms about authorizing criminals to commit burglaries in order to allow him to make an end run around the Fourth Amendment….in order to then go on raids like this one. That doesn’t come close to “just doing his job”. That’s more like “burning down the village to save it”.
OK, Bill, on the basis that Shivers was working closely with Turnbull, I would have to agree: scumbag. I retract my previous comments.
Appreciate that, SJE! Not everyone is capable of admitting a mistake. Fortunately, I never have to ;-)
#19
Won’t happen. A cop died (and I agree with those who believe he had it coming) so there will be no stone left unturned in the effort to exact revenge. Even if Ryan is found not guilty, there will be a cop waiting for him at the door of the courthouse willing to take one for the team. Maybe even one with a terminal illness so the judge can get away with home detention instead of hard time.
That cop’s family will be well taken care of. Ryan’s family won’t get squat.
Did anyone catch this part: “He tried to assure Frederick that he was not involved in the break-in, but Frederick seemed to know that the burglars were Steven and a dark -skinned black male, possibly from a security camera, said Turnbull, who is black”?
Ryan Frederick may have had a security camera? Oooh – the implications.
seeker6079, I agree that it will be interesting to see what Turnbull’s cell phone records show. I am particularly interested to see the number and timing of calls between Turnbull and police numbers, both official and private, as they relate to the timing of the burglary and Frederick’s alleged conversations with Turnbull.
One point in the article that I wasn’t sure what to make of was that Frederick knew who “Steven” was and called Steven’s parent’s house. If that’s true (and it would be a dumb lie to tell, since that should be verifiable), presumably, Frederick didn’t get the parents’ number from caller ID. In fact, reading that section of the article, I get the idea that Frederick knew Steven’s was involved in the robbery (no way to know that from the caller ID of a missed call from Turnbull’s cell phone), knew Steven’s name, knew how to get in touch with his parents, knew he was in jail, and so on. None of those details seem like things Turnbull would have told him. One has to wonder if Frederick didn’t have some prior contact with Steven or if there was more interaction with him after the burglary that Turnbull hasn’t mentioned or doesn’t know about. Or, it can be shown that Frederick didn’t know Steven, didn’t call his parents’, etc. and that would put the lie to Turnbull’s account.
BTW, there might have been a security camera? Either that is true and it adds a whole other dimension to the evidence that will come up or it’s false and it also tends to undermine Turnbull’s account. Turnbull is correct at least in that there must be some reason that Frederick was able to match his description from the night of the burglary, assuming that’s something Frederick said to the police after his arrest and not just another (possibly fabricated) part of Turnbull’s story.
Haha. SusanK, great minds… :-)
Those of us who know Ryan know how crazy this informants story is. Now i’m not gonna say there’s no fact in it cuz there is ,I believe the police did tell steven and this guy to break in the shed. Only yes ryan did call steven’s phone because he knew Steven was the one who broke in, so he called steven and did threaten him directly but only about calling the police on steven for the breakin and steven said he’d get Ryan, so ryan was scared of steven being the one coming back in retalitation. Remember that Steven was dating Ryans fieance’s sister. Now the prosecution can twist that all they want and so can the informants because yes Ryan did call Steven and there will be phone records. It just never sceases to amaze me how you can twist a story to make things fit sometimes..I mean what person in there right mind would remove all the plants inthere garage supposivly and not take his personal and Parphanalia and get rid of that too, and then shoot it out with the police thats just stupid and insane and those of us who know Ryan really know how dumb that sounds, he never had a death wish and if he knew police were coming he would have removed everything in the home and greated them.
Get over it. It’s 2008.The police can do whatever they want.
http://tonycreed.com/taskforceraid.html
Thanks Gen, that helps clarify what otherwise seemed like some unusual details.
I am trying to catalog the logical absurdities in the prosecution case at tidewaterliberty.com
The list is getting long, but if anyone can add to it, please do.
[...] Radley Balko links to a Virginia-Pilot story detailing how the Chesapeake VA police used burglars to establish probable cause before they busted in on Ryan Frederick, getting one of themselves killed in the process. In fact, the cop that wound up dead was one of the cops that recruited the two burglars to steal incriminating evidence for pay. [...]
So, we all agree, “Overkill” is the sad,true picture of Swat in America. “Just doing my job” = dangerous,prosecutable ,scumbag.
PS, to “themole” or Tony C. I read your site.Bad scene. Question- when you say “we contract with SDSD”, who is “we”? Or is that a “secret”. Comment- NOW! ,you know what it’s like to be on the other side of the picture. I’ve been there, and I have to say it, WHAT GO’S AROUND….You’re right,” it’s 2008 “,all over…and over…and…nice skulls !