TheAgitator.com
Update on the Ryan Frederick Trial
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009Today is the third day in the trial of Ryan Frederick, the 28-year-old Chesapeake, Virginia man facing murder charges for killing a police officer during a drug raid (see this wiki for more on Frederick’s case). Tuesday primarily consisted of jury selection. Yesterday featured the opening statements.
I’m really in awe of the prosecution’s brazen strategy. According to the Virginian-Pilot, prosecutor James Willett argued in his opening that Frederick was “stoned out of his mind,” and “in a blind rage” at the time of the raid. Willett is apparently confident that no one on the jury has ever smoked marijuana. Frederic attorney James Broccoletti then asked the judge to admit into evidence a video in which a police detective flat-out says that Frederick didn’t appear high at the time of the raid. Moreover, in a recorded conversation taken shortly after the raid, Frederic says he didn’t know the men breaking into his home were the police. And he’s weeping.
As I suspected, the prosecution’s case is going to rely not just on the word of criminal informants, but of jailhouse snitches, too. Again from the Virginian-Pilot:
[Frederick] later told a jail inmate that if he had more ammunition, “he would have taken them all down,” a prosecutor told jurors Wednesday.
“He’s over there” in jail “bragging about it. He thinks he’s going to beat this charge,” James Willett, one of three prosecutors, told the jury during opening statements.
This is just absurd. Frederick was on suicide watch shortly after the raid. He surrendered after discovering the men breaking into his home were the police. Everyone I’ve spoken to who knows Frederick describes him as meek, shy, and introverted. It isn’t surprising that the prosecution could find a felon willing to say Frederick confessed to him in exchange for help with his own sentence. What will be surprising is if the jury is made aware of the deal he cut with prosecutors.
One other huge inconsistency in the state’s case came out in opening arguments. From the Tidewater Liberty blog:
[Willett] went on to describe how the police carefully planned how to serve the warrant and of the necessity of serving it with overwhelming force because they knew Frederick’s home had been burglarized and he would be wary.
Let’s set aside for a moment the incredibly dumb calculation that it would be a good idea to launch an aggressive, forced-entry, after-dark raid on a man the police knew would be “wary” because his home had just been burglarized. (A man who had no prior record and no history of violent behavior, by the way.)
We now know that the police informants were the ones who broke into Frederick’s home, and that this is how they obtained probable cause for the raid. Yet the police didn’t explain on their affidavit for the warrant that their probable cause had been obtained illegally, as is required by law. The state says this is because the police weren’t aware of that fact until months later. Yet they’re now arguing that the police knew on the night of the raid that Frederick’s house had been broken into three nights earlier, even though Frederick never reported the break-in.
So the state is arguing the following:
• The police knew on the night of the raid that Frederick’s home had been burglarized three nights before the raid.
• The police learned of the break-in through their informant, Steven Wright. Frederick never reported the break-in.
• The police mention on the warrant that Wright was in Frederick’s home “72 hours” prior to the raid.
• Despite all of this, the police never made the connection that, despite his criminal record, and that he was desperate to get help on the felony charges he was facing at the time, their informant could possibly have been the one who committed the break in.
The Chesapeake police involved in this raid were either corrupt or stupid. They either lied on the warrant, or they were incredibly ignorant of what their informants were doing. The prosecution has apparently calculated that their case against Frederick is better served by “stupid.”
Frederick’s defense is moving for a mistrial given these inconsistencies in police and prosecution statements regarding the informants.
The few times I have posted comments to your stories I have done so under the name Carl Drega because I want people to learn about his story. He killed some government agents who made his life hell. When I read about this story and think about the impending lifelong imprisonment of Ryan Frederick for doing nothing wrong I wonder what am I to do with this violent rage against people like prosecutor Willet. Is it really too early to shoot the bastards? Where to move and be in a more sane place?
I remember how I felt the first time I saw “Waco: The Rules of Engagement” and this the same type of feeling. If I wasn’t an atheist I would be praying my ass off for Mr. Frederick because the cards are stacked against him and the system has been perverted to the point I doubt he has much of a chance.
I get a sick feeling reading about this trial. Its like watching a lynching in slow motion. The jailhouse informant testimony is a particularly disgusting tactic.
The first thing to take note of is how much information is missing from the Pilot’s coverage, and how different the story is when you read those details on Doc Tabor’s blog. This difference in coverage is the subject of the blog post I’m working on right this minute.
Why is the Pilot (and the coverage is even worse on the local TV news), with it’s budget and it’s paid, experienced, full-time professional journalist, so much worse at this than Tabor and me, with our shoestring budgets, lack of staff, day jobs getting in the way of being there for every new development, and lack of experience in investigative journalism?
Then on the next level is Radley, who does this for a living, and knows how to get the story, but can’t be in southeastern Virginia at all times to witness what the Pilot isn’t reporting, and he beats them to the punch most of the time.
Whither the fourth estate?
I hope the judge strikes down the mistrial motion. This is not because I don’t think it is deserved, but, rather, I would rather he recieve a not guilty verdict. With a mistrial, the state would try to get their ducks in a row and try him again, maybe with more convincing lies.
Carl, I don’t think the prosecution is going to get away with this one. They keep hanging themselves every time they speak, and too many people are watching for them to sneak their very worst tactics in. If they try their usual dirty tricks, the uprising will be very loud, and these prosecutors will be disbarred for sure.
Sadly though, the public just doesn’t give these people this kind of scrutiny often enough.
Thank you for covering this Mr. Balko, and all you’ve done to raise awareness of this ghastly injustice.
I agree with Newsom. I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I’m being stupid. But it seems that when the prosecution is this determined to put forward the stupidest case possible, you take it.
If I were Frederick’s attorney, I’d be tempted to respond to that opening statement the way Joe Pesci did in My Cousin Vinny.
One possible outcome.
1. Exculpatory evidence is suppressed.
2. Jury convicts.
3. Jury complains after the trial when they find out more of the facts.
4. Everyone goes home and case is forgotten as it winds its way through appeals.
5. Frederick’s life is destroyed.
6. Frederick is released after he wins the appeal.
7. Prosecutors and judge go on to have illustrious, tough-on-crime careers.
“Whither the fourth estate?”
Bought and paid for, Rick. Bought and paid for.
“[Willett] went on to describe how the police carefully planned how to serve the warrant and of the necessity of serving it with overwhelming force because they knew Frederick’s home had been burglarized and he would be wary.”
When I read this it reminds me of the Simpsons where Nelson Muntz stands under a dangling beehive and throws rock after rock at it. It would be a lot funnier if they weren’t trying to ruin a guy’s life on this basis.
How about we add one more bullet point, Dave:
8. What Carl Drega said.
@Mike #7
Broccoletti’s opening statement was the lawyerly way to do just that.
Willet said that Ryan was stoned out of his mind. Broccoletti had the jury removed, and demanded a video be shown to the jury. It was. And this video showed Ryan not only obviously sober, but the interviewing detective saying as much.
Willet said that Ryan should have known that it was police at his door, because they were wearing tactical jackets with POLICE emblazoned on them prominently. Broccoletti showed the jury photos of the clothes Shivers was actually wearing during the raid. He was wearing blue jeans, a Quicksilver hoodie, and a tactical jacket with a 2 inch by 4 inch patch that said police.
There was more, but I think this was at least as good as Vinny’s reaction in the movie.
Why is the detectives wife testifying in this trial? What does she have to do with the issues of the case?
http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_012209_frederick_trial_mrs_shivers.1b932bf5.html
“What will be surprising is if the jury is made aware of the deal he cut with prosecutors.”
What are the rules for the defense bringing this up in trial?
Does the judge have to approve the defense being allowed to inquire into particulars of such deals?
Do we think the jury is really so stupid that they do not understand the Quid pro quo relationship between the prosecutor and the inmate? There is always something for something, never something for nothing.
If those two snitches/burglars get put on the stand, there’s really not way for a judge to stop Ryan’s lawyer from tearing apart their credibility, right? right?
I think ive just seen the evidence of ryans pot induced rage that led to the shooting.
http://www.archive.org/details/reefer_madness1938
The Pilot has update their story to include more of the details. Still not up to par with Tabor’s blog post, but it takes some of the steam out of the post I was working on.
Radley has pointed this out before.
When the prosecutor uses a jailhouse snitch, the snitch is considered honest and trustworthy.
When the prosecutor goes after that same snitch with criminal charges, he’s considered untrustworthy and unreliable.
I hope Rick Caldwell is right.
Rick Caldwell,
Are you there at the trial? Your post seems to indicate knowing a lot more than the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I have the horrible feeling that Dave Krueger’s scenario is far too likely. The ability of prosecutors to keep relevant and exculpatory evidence out of the view and consideration of jurors is far too high.
Shivers’ widow spoke today while slides showed the two of them.
Why, why dear god was this part of the trial. I feel miserable for her for he loss but what could she has possibly added to this murder trial. No side is claiming he wasn’t a good cop and that the loss isn’t tragic. What is being argured is whether Frederick acted lawfully in firing at the door.
Her presence only shows how pathetically shallow the prosecution’s case is.
The trouble with jury-based trials is that it might work.
WTF? I clicked through the link posted by Claude, and it appears that Shivers’ widow was indeed the first witness called by the prosecution. I’m an attorney, and I cannot possibly imagine how they were able to get her on the stand; Does anyone attending the trial know how they pulled this off?
(And please, please tell me that either today or at some earlier proceeding Broccoletti objected to this and preserved the issue for appeal).
This gives me a bit of hope. The “stoned out of his mind” video rebuttal and “tactical jacket” photo rebuttal is a great way to show the jury early on what kind of case the prosecutor is going to present.
I can’t believe twelve people would be stupid enough to be fooled by this.
@ktc2 #20
I’m not at the trial right now, because I have to be at work. I’ll be there tomorrow. I knew before the trial started about most of this stuff, because I’ve spent the last year talking to Ryan’s family and his neighbors who witnessed the event. There’s a lot that I was going to post on my website over the last three months, but the prosecution reads my site(I’ve seen the IP addresses). I’ve decided that if they read how I counter their bold faced lies, they don’t learn much until they’ve already put their feet in their mouths publicly. But if I preempt the lies, they can come up with new lies, and “witnesses” to support the lies.
Still, I’ve been covering this story, and have broken a few of the stories that the Pilot and the TV stations picked up on later. If you follow Radley’s link to Tidewater Liberty, you see a detailed recap of yesterday’s proceedings. Don Tabor runs that site, and he was there.
Updated Virginia Pilot story.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/01/detectives-widow-first-witness-fredericks-murder-trial
“Why is the detectives wife testifying in this trial? What does she have to do with the issues of the case?”
I had the same question. No probative. Highly prejudicial. Does this judge know anything?
So the first witness went on, does that mean the mistrial motion was denied?
If the cop’s wife can testify at the trial surely the defence can dig up and call the embittered rival suitor who she jilted years ago to marry him.
That man can give a viewpoint of what the cop is like that’s about equally balanced and relevant.
I’m hoping everyone who has been working so hard to cover this is able to continue on throughout the trial. This is an incredible travesty. The comparison to a “slow motion lynching” made by AJP is dead-on.
The cops wife should not be allowed to testify at this stage of trial: it is clearly prejudicial, and far more so that probative of any facts.
Putting the grieving widow on the stand is fucking bullshit. If his wife hated his guts and wanted him dead, should the legal outcome of the case be any different? How great of a guy Shivers may have been in his personal life is completely irrelevant and is introduced for no reason but to prejudice the jury. This is just fucking low and desperate.
In an early draft of the same article, the prosecutor was quoted not only as saying that Frederick was “in an angry, blind rage”, but that he “went into a panic”. These sound like two very different things to me.
Reggie (#22), perhaps someone should be claiming that Shivers wasn’t a good cop. One of the two informants stated in an interview that Shivers was a contact with him and Steven, the other informant, and that the burglaries were condoned and that if they found anything interesting, they should let him know. So if the jury needs to know what a sweet guy Shivers was, perhaps they will also learn that he was involved in what amounts to a criminal conspiracy. IF the statements made in that interview were true, he was not a “good cop” or a “hero”, he was a disgrace to his badge, and Chesapeake may well be better off with him prevented from continuing these kinds of behaviors–better at the cost of his life than some innocent citizen.
The wife on the stand stinks to me of desperation on the part of the prosecution, and I can only guess they’re trying to soften the blow of revelations about how this “investigation” and raid were carried out.
Please tell me there was an objection from the defense on the widow testifying. You definitely want that as one of your avenues of appeal if this goes against you.
Bill, don’t you think that making the case about the cop (and whether he was a ‘good cop’ or not, could lead the jury to convict? No one wants to feel like their police department is full of bad apples, true or not.
OMG! “The people” put the widow on?
Exactly what scale of justice was used to test the probative vs prejudicial balance here? On the probative side, the widow can only establish that the cop was alive when he went to work. Great. We now have evidence that she did not kill her husband. I’m glad we cleared that up.
Sorry, I would order a new trial.
I think it’s great that “the people” are using snitches. It gives the defense the chance to show the jury what a bad guy looks like: ie, you don’t become a cop killer overnight. First, you mug a few people, then you hold up a liquor store, you get a couple of assault charges–you know, just like Mr. Snitch right here.
What will be surprising is if the jury is made aware of the deal he cut with prosecutors.
Sounds like a job for Frederick’s attorney, there.
“Mr. $SNITCH, is it true that you have been offered a 10 year sentence reduction for testifying against Mr. Frederick, giving you a significant motivation to tell the jury anything the prosecution wants them to hear?”
anon (#36), you may be very well be right on that point. It could cut both ways, though: if the cop was crooked, then the quality of evidence on which he was acting may have actually increased the risk to himself–if he was attacking someone who had no reason to anticipate a police raid, then the notion that Frederick feared for his life and acted in self-defense increases. If the actions of CPD are seen in a bad light, there may also be a desire on the part of the jury to “punish” the police by rendering a not guilty verdict. That’s not the way justice is supposed to work, but it’s also not supposed to be based on how sad the victim’s widow was.
I suppose the light in which Det. Shivers is seen will impact the case differently depending on the jury composition and their own opinion of CPD.
Wither The Fourth Estate?…
The trial of Ryan Frederick began yesterday. I couldn’t get the time off work to be there yesterday or today. I will be there on Friday. I wish I could have been there, though, because the prosecution has already stuck their feet in their mouths a few…
Sorry, I would order a new trial.
If I were a judge and the prosecutor persisted in asking prejudicial questions of the decedent’s widow despite the defendant’s objections, I would inform both the prosecutor and the defendant that I would grant any defense motion for mistrial at any time prior to sentencing, but that the defense would be free to try for an acquittal first.
Such misconduct is not sufficient basis for a directed verdict of acquittal, but there is no reason the defendant should be punished for it. To declare mistrial when the defendant could otherwise have won would harm the defendant; better instead to let the defendant try to win and allow the option for a mistrial if he doesn’t (note that if, e.g. the defendant were convicted of manslaughter, a defense motion for mistrial would expose the defendant to the risk of a murder conviction).
BTW, if I were a judge, I would also inform defense attorneys that in cases involving search warrants I would welcome arguments that searches were “unreasonable” and instruct juries that they should disregard any inculpatory evidence which was gained through any unreasonable search (the actual question of reasonableness would be left to the jury to decide).
Probably not standard protocol, but if a jury would find that a particular search was unreasonable, that would imply that the jury must, per the Constitution, regard the search as illegitimate. The Constitution may not define “unreasonable”, but it doesn’t give judges the authority to device what is reasonable and isn’t (judges seem to think almost anything is reasonable). Such authority should thus belong to the jury.
The tidewater update is available.
http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/twenty-five-seconds/
“It isn’t surprising that the prosecution could find a felon willing to say Frederick confessed to him in exchange for help with his own sentence.”
Why do we even allow prisoners to make this kind of deal? Am I missing something?
Here is the most striking thing I read in the most recently updated Hampton Roads coverage:
“Roberts testified that Wright was a new informant but that he proved reliable in a prior case that led to the arrest and conviction of a drug dealer. Wright was paid $50 for the information , Roberts said.
Defense attorney James Broccoletti tried to show that police relied on little more than Wright’s word before conducting the raid. Detectives acknowledged they had no other evidence that Frederick was dealing marijuana.”
So, following up on my previous post, the raid was conducted solely on the word of ONE informant, a guy who allegedly had a grudge against Frederick, who had ONCE before provided $50 worth of usable intelligence to CPD. Further, the prosecution earlier claimed that surveillance and a background check were conducted. That means that the “investigation” provided no corroboration of the claims of the informant, and yet they STILL assaulted Frederick’s house.
Whether or not the jury finds Frederick guilty, these cops are clearly, BASED ON THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, a greater threat to their community than the criminals they are pursuing–let alone the criminals they’ve apparently taken under their wing in exchange for information.
I recall that after the Frederick incident an outside agency reviewed their procedures, and the report was not made public. Guess we don’t have to wonder why any more.
Here’s another question: Det. Roberts claimed that they didn’t know that their informant broke into Frederick’s house until about three months ago, despite his being asked “15 times”. Leaving aside the question of why you would ask anyone the same question 15 times–either they’re credible enough to believe on the first answer, or the fifteenth is no better than the first fourteen–but how is it that on Sept. 10, HamptonRoads.com ran the story that, according to police, Frederick had called one of the burglars and said that he “had something” for the police? And how is it that they weren’t able to put two and two together using Frederick’s phone records that had been subpoenaed according to a Feb. 10 article?
the more that comes out, the more i believe jared shivers deserved that bullet. i know some will jump on that statement, but its hard to believe that the guy was completely ignorant of what was happening, especially since it was himself and one other officer who performed the raid. yes, the state claims 8 officers were present during the raid. but i have a real hard time believing anything the state says, so i give weight to frederick’s neighbor’s statements, that indicate just shivers and another officer were there when the raid began. i anticipate finding out if this jury will buy into the state’s blatant lies concerning frederick and the case itself. after all, a police officer died, and someone must pay. that means more to some than pursuing truth and justice.
I agree with the others here that say by putting Nicole Shivers on was such BULL SHIT! They did it to try to get some sympathy from the jury which they probably got. How he was as a husband doesn’t have NOTTHING to do with how he handled himself on the job! If I had been the judge I would not have allowed her to take the stand. This is something that normally you would see at his sentencing part of the trial perhaps but NOT TO be the FIRST one called to testify!! I’m betting they find him guilty when he SHOULD be found NOT GULITY!! I keep hoping the defense comes up with a bomb shell to use to sway the jury in his favor!
Does it really surprise anyone that the informant is now a wanted man and on the run from the law? It shouldn’t as that the is the last person the prosecutors want to be called to testify!!
You know, there are any number of self-styled “whiz-kids” out there, who seek to appear worthy, by stringing a series of multi-syllable words together, to make a coherent sentence. But it is a rare pleasure and privilege, even an honor, to observe a truly intelligent person (i.e. uses his/her intelligence, intelligently) while they are in their element…
Mr. Broccoletti is an excellent attorney. After Mr. Willett made his “the defendant was stoned out of his mind, in a blind rage, in a panic, shooting at cops” opening statement, Mr. Broccoletti proceeded to tear him another asshole, big enough to throw a cat through…
By the time that Mr. Broccoletti got finished with his opening statement (in which he tore down, point-by-point everything that Mr. Willett had said), all three of these worthies from Prince William County (Ebert, Conway and Willett) were scratching their heads, and not saying a word. (It made me wish I had gone to law school). That was Wednesday afternoon…
(Jury selection on Tuesday and Wednesday morning was, as you can imagine, like watching paint dry, although not quite as exciting…)
Yesterday, the prosecutions’ case began. Yes, Detective Shivers’ widow took the stand first. As soon as she sat in the witness chair, the waterworks began (it reminded me of Mr. Willett’s use of the term “crocodile tears” in reference to the defendant, the day before…). Mr. Broccoletti didn’t object, and didn’t trouble to cross-examine.
After that, the cops were called – Captain Dunlap, CO of Special Investigations, gave testimony regarding the exemplary career of Detective Shivers, as well as the mission of the Special Investigations Branch of the CPD.
After that, Detective Roberts (Lead Detective and planner (along with Shivers) of this raid, testified about CI’s, how they’re utilized, how they’re paid, the contract they sign, etc. Specifics of this particular raid, pre-mission briefing, the specific role of each officer, what they wore, where standing, “knock and announce” procedure, who did what, 25 seconds before door was breached, muffled pop, officer down, establishing the perimeter to prevent escape of suspect, surrender and arrest of suspect, etc., etc., etc.
(Go to “www.tidewaterliberty.com for specific details – Doc Tabor and I sat next to each other…)
The four officers that followed essentially told the same story, in the same order, with the same details, using the same words, because (I believe) they were all reciting from the same script. Doc Tabor, in his write-up is much more charitable in his assessment, giving them the benefit of the doubt in saying that they’re telling the truth.
Their body language, facial expressions and inability to maintain eye-contact with whomever was questioning them (most notably Roberts and Duncan), however, indicated to me, at least, that they weren’t telling the truth.
I spoke to Mr. Broccoletti as we were walking to our cars – “so, do you get the impression that they all sat in a conference room, came up with a scenario that is both plausible and righteous, wrote it all down, made 17 copies (the number of cops in the raid), and handed them out, saying, “memorize this?”
He said, “Yep, that’s why they had the re-enactment…”
Later, guys – gotta go to court…
Thanks for the info John, keep it coming.
John (#50),
Thanks for your point of view. I wonder if it would be the same if Broccoletti was defending some scumbag that harmed you or your family? As for some of your observations:
Practiced witnesses at a criminal trial, or should I say experienced witnesses – such as detectives and police officers, do not look at the people asking the questions, they look at the people they are trying to inform, such as the judge or jury.
Body language, you schmuck, they’re talking about the circumstances leading to the death of a friend and partner, how are they supposed to sit?
Rehearsed, practiced testimony? As Dr. Tabor indicated on his site (doing a much better job of informing than you are by the way), these detectives have all done search warrants, numerous times together. They train and perform them together. They follow policy and guidelines, each knows the others responsibility. They are professionals. Of course their versions of events will sound the same, because they are telling the truth.
The neighbors being more credible? We’ll see. I bet Broccoletti doesn’t call them to dispute the CPD’s version, you know why? He knows it is assanine to think 2 detectives were serving a drug warrant by themselves. But, maybe I’m wrong, why don’t you ask him the next time you have a rendevous with him in the court parking lot?
CEH: Perhaps you can explain how the state’s version of events makes any sense. My brain is incapable of following its logic. Maybe you can help me with some things. Among them:
-1- Is there any reasonable way that the police could have believed anything the informant said about what was in Fredrick’s garage, and believed that there had been a burglary, without also believing that their informant was the burglar?
-2- Is it reasonable to conduct a nighttime raid on the home of someone who is known to be legitimately worried about a nighttime attack by criminals?
-3- Was the warrant predicated upon any sworn personal knowledge of any sort whatsoever? Warrant applications frequently contain a bunch of unsworn hearsay which judges should ignore but often don’t, but they generally also contain at least some statement of personal observation by the testifying officers. Was there anything at all in this case?
-4- Should Ryan Frederick have thought himself more likely to be invaded by robbers or police? If the former, why should he not have acted on that basis. If the latter, why should that not be taken as a sign that our government is devolving into totalitarian anarchy?
Supercat (53),
First, I’m not totally happy with how this and other narcotics search warrants go down. My post above is due to John’s outright contempt for the CPD and assertions they are corrupt, which I do not feel is true.
1) The use of criminal confidential informants is ingrained in law enforcement today. There are ethical issues with it, as we all know. I would have liked to see corroboration along with the CI’s assertions in this matter. They weren’t there. Never the less, the detective used a person he found to be reliable before. This CI evidently indicated what he saw and also seems to have indicated there was a break-in, but that he didn’t do it. With no police report of a break in (of course Frederick is not going to report his pot plants were stolen!) all they have to go on is his word. It was accurate once, they hoped it would be accurate again (and apparently it was, since Broccoletti has admitted in court Frederick grew his own marijuana).
2) I don’t know. How many narcs do you know that work 9-5? They are night owls, because that is when they conduct their street enforcement efforts. Lets not forget 8ish is not the middle of the night either. It is a reasonable time to think the suspect, along with the evidence of criminal activity, will be home. Some folks seem to think the police have unlimited resources to stake out and set-up perimeters for hours on end. They do not (especially in relatively minor drug cases like this – yes, it is minor). I’m sure, had this incident been uneventful, another investigation would have been pursued by the detectives and another after that. Efficiency and effectiveness are the buzzwords. Is that right? Obviously not this time. But politicians and citizens (you!) demand action when criminal activity is afoot. Maybe no citizen complained this time, but other times they do. There are external factors that affect how PDs operate, politics, courts and citizen demands being the most predominate in my opinion. Like Doc Tabor said, these detectives have done “100s” of these together – they were apparently uneventful because I don’t remember any CPD bashing on this site before.
3) No, I don’t think there was. You said yourself that judges shouldn’t go on hearsay, being the uncorroborated word of an informant, but they do – all the time, it is legal. Again, not that it is right, but why would a resource stressed profession, such as law enforcement, do more than necessary to meet the demands of the law? It’s not their fault they don’t have to provide more, it’s the court’s and the legislators (and you, the citizens, for not demanding more). Have them fix it and the police will obey.
4) I don’t know, only he knows. He was growing pot and hanging with other criminals (he knew and associated with the CI, who else that was shady did he associate with – very model citizen he was). If you do that, shoot, either or. Eventually, either some other thug wannabes are gonna come knockin or the police are. That’s how it plays out. Totalitarian Anarchy! That’s the problem – sensationalize it. Supreme court case law has provided what is reasonable for law enforcement to wait when serving a knock and announce warrant – and I think it is shorter than 25 seconds ( so they are part of the problem too, not just the cops). The rules of the court and state dictate what is required for a search warrant, and apparently that was met.
Ryan’s choices started the chain of events that led to this incident. Remember that. This was not a mistaken home, which when Radley highlights them are true tragedies and the ultimate sign of sloppy police work. He was doing what the CI suggested. Was it the crime of the century? No. Could the police have done something different? Yes. Were they required to? No.
And what of those different scenarios? We know the police had information Frederick had a gun. Okay, let’s wait him out. He comes out – hands up, search warrant! Complies. Summons for misdemeanor possession of marijuana issued, first offender status granted, all is good. But wait, he’s a driver, needs to protect himself with his gun. Hands up, search warrant! Hesitates, reaches for his waistband – what was he thinking!, bam! he’s dead (are we blogging a year later like we are now?). Also, here we go, “Knock, knock – Police search warrant!, knock, knock – police search warrant!” Movement, he’s in there going to the back room. Okay let’s wait him out. “Muffled Bang” oh crap, he killed himself! Again, over some stolen pot plants that aren’t even there – are we still blogging a year later?
My problem with this in no corroboration of CI information and yes, if they knew the plants were in the garage, they didn’t have to force entry, but they were not prohibited by law from doing so, so they did. Det. Shivers is dead. I don’t think the CIs acted on behalf of the police, I hope not.
I’m offering a different perspective, not totally in agreement with the CPD, but not as condeming as many on this blog. For whatever that is worth.
#54:
You’re giving the police the benefit of the doubt to the point that it strains all credulity. They invaded a man’s home based on nothing more than the word of an informant with felony charges pending against him. They didn’t even bother to ask what happened to the plants, to ask him to bring them to them so they could test them. Why wouldn’t you ask him to show you the plants, if the plants are going to be your basis for probable cause?
The state’s story surrounding how they used these two informants has shifted as new information has come out.
Moreover, CPD’s corroborating investigation actually cut against the notion that Frederick was a dangerous drug dealer. No prior record, no unusual activity at his house. Yet they still broke into his house while he was sleeping.
As for Frederick, you write:
He was growing pot and hanging with other criminals (he knew and associated with the CI, who else that was shady did he associate with – very model citizen he was).
Not quite. Steven Wright was dating Frederick’s fiance’s sister. Frederick didn’t “hang with him.” He didn’t like Wright. In fact, Frederick had banned Wright from his home, going back three months prior to the raid.
As far as we know, Frederick’s only “choice” here was to break our dumb marijuana laws so he could smoke in his own home, something millions of Americans do every day.
And people do not understand why I hate cops. There are laws of operation, police constantly ignore, with the attitude of We are the Cops and we do not have to obey the law, submit to us, or else you are in trouble. Where is the 4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment, Second Amendment? that interfers with the Cops too.
First Amendment, OK as long as you do not say or print or do anything that puts anyone down. We have lost our Bill of Rights because you did not elect Don Cordell as your president.
Radley, thanks for the response.
Asking the CI to bring the plants to the police would in fact mean he stole them and was acting on behalf of the police. They assert he was not. They assert he provided information and information only and since he was reliable before, they used it in their affadavit for the search warrant. We know, based on testimony, that they did ask, what 15 times, if he was the burglar… we don’t know what was asked or how. Was it incredulous, “What do you mean there was a burglary, did you do it? You did it didn’t you! Why did you do it? Do you know who did it? Where’d the plants go? Are there any left?” I don’t know. Why is it unreasonable to believe that this guy spun a yarn that the police believed? Again, he was considered reliable, included in an affadavit and approved my a magistrate. That is the threshold the police had to meet and apparently, to that magistrate, they did.
As for his felony charges, were they pending before this incident or after? I don’t know. If he was arrested on them after, that is moot to this discussion I think. He IS a criminal informant, i.e. a criminal, after all.
You forgot to mention that the police knew he had a gun. Talk to any cop, when that information is known, it changes the equation a bit. They announced themselves and waited in a fashion deemed reasonable by the Supreme Court and then decided to force entry. At 8 p.m., not 3 a.m. Unfortunately, if he came out of his room at the 15 second mark, stretching and yawning, I don’t know if they would have hit the door anyway or not. But, they performed in a manner accepted by the courts and done everyday. That is really what the problem is. Not that they did it, but that it is allowed.
Just because someone doesn’t have a criminal record does not = no risk, it = unknown risk, and precautions will be taken by the police (the use of forced entry tactics being one of them). As far as Ryan’s relationship with the CI or anyone else for that matter, you know what you’ve been told, maybe it’s true, maybe not. You’re on their side (or you’re on the side of more restrained tactics, obviously). They want to tell you things favorable to them. And Radley, just because a million people do it, doesn’t mean the police should ignore it. Keep doing what you’re doing and I think things will change. The police are working within parameters deemed acceptable by many (not all – I peruse these blogs afterall) members of the public, the courts and the lawmakers.
I think a manslaughter conviction is the likely outcome of this incident. Maybe Frederick won’t get much more than time served. We’ll see. I hope the CPD has learned and will adapt, but still, I don’t think they are corrupt.
#54:
-1- If police find a stolen television set worth $1,000 in my house and I tell them I had no idea the guy who sold it to me, for $50 cash and from the back of his car, had stolen it, do you think they’d believe me? Or would they say that I should have known that it was most likely stolen and my deliberate blindness to that fact is no defense?
-2- Can you explain why a bash-in raid would not be more dangerous to everyone and more damaging to the target’s property than conducting the search in civilized fashion, especially given that the suspected contraband was in the garage rather than the house? If the raid wasn’t important enough to justify doing some real police work, it wasn’t important to justify the reckless endangerment of everyone’s life including the target.
-3- The Constitution states that no legitimate warrant may be issued except probable cause which is supported by oath or affirmation (ergo, any warrant issued without meeting such requirement is void). Judges often let their determination of probable cause be swayed by garbage hearsay, but usually there’s at least some sworn evidence even if it’s a vague statement about unspecified “unusual traffic patterns” or some such nonsense. Did the police in this case offer even one iota of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation?
-4- I don’t know about the particular laws where Mr. Frederick lives, but my impression is that in some places a red-light camera ticket carries a higher fine than a possessing the amount of pot that Mr. Frederick had. So should anyone who’s ever cut a light a little close have to worry about the police bashing in their door?
Supercat,
1) Would you be that stupid? If it’s too good to be true it usually is and all that.
2) No, as I thought I mentioned in my above post about not agreeing with how this went down, but that it was not done contrary to law and established practice across this country.
3) All affadavits for search warrants are sworn to. The probable cause was apparently soley the word of a “reliable” informant. I think it can be found on the Virginia Pilot’s archives somewhere. So, that burden was met. Sufficiently, in your opinion not, in the magistrate’s? yes.
4) In the state of Virginia possession of marijuana is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2500 fine and/or 12 months in jail. Not the same as a red light ticket.
#56) You hate all cops? None of them have ever done you or anyone you know right? Never saw footage of a cop risking his life to save a stranger? Never heard of cops stopping crimes in progress and protecting the lives of innocent citizens? Never heard of cops performing CPR or delivering babies on the side of the interstate or diffusing suicidal situations? Nothing? None of that? Go run for office in Mexico, they need you.
As for his felony charges, were they pending before this incident or after? I don’t know. If he was arrested on them after, that is moot to this discussion I think. He IS a criminal informant, i.e. a criminal, after all.
He was arrested on felony credit card theft and fraud charges three days before the raid. Those charges were dropped in the weeks following the raid. Some were then reinstated several months later.
Why is it unreasonable to believe that this guy spun a yarn that the police believed?
You wouldn’t be suspicions if your informant came to you and said, “Yeah, he had marijuana in there. Also, someone broke into his house the same night. But it wasn’t me.”
Wouldn’t you ask how he saw the marijuana? How he had access to the house? Wouldn’t you ask how he knew about the burglary?
Moreover, since he has since admitted to burglarizing Frederick’s home, why hasn’t he been charged for that crime?
Seems to me the most likely explanation is that they know they’ll lose his cooperation if they charge him with a crime they asked him to commit–or at least consented to him committing?
1) Are police so stupid as to believe that the guy who claims to have found some stuff in a garage at the same time as it was burglarized probably wasn’t involved in the burglary?
2) If a particular proposed course of action is known to put numerous people in mortal peril, and there exists another obvious course of action which would not, can the first course of action be considered reasonable without some clear basis for believing it superior to the second? If not, then what clear basis would exist to justify the raid as conducted?
3) What, if anything, did the informant actually swear to? Normal procedure is to mostly ignore the oath or affirmation requirement and give the judge a bunch of unsworn garbage hearsay, but then give a slight nod to the Constitution by offering sworn testimony about some personal observation by the officer. A cop shouldn’t accept the fact that a cop saw unspecified “suspicious traffic patterns” near a house as probable cause to search it, but technically that’s a judgment call. On the other hand, I’m unaware of the cops in this case having offered up even that.
4) What is the typical sentence for a first-time offender for possession of less than an ounce of pot? I’d be surprised if the typical sentence in such a case would be more than the $400+ that some places charge for photo tickets.
56) I like and appreciate peace officers. I despise totalitarian anarchists. Was the decedent in this case shot while he was performing CPR, delivering a baby, or acting like a peace officer? Or was he shot when he was acting like a burglar?
1) He’s got some plants and says some were recently stolen… I don’t know how it was presented, neither do you, we’ll find out though.
2) “Known” nothing is ever known, only after it happens does it become known. Are there risks associated with things, yes. Again and again, I’ve said I thought it could have been done differently – are you reading my whole post or just the parts that piss you off?
3) Informants don’t swear to a thing. They provide info. the detective swears in his affadavit that the informant has been reliable in the past so he must be reliable now.
4) Not even that: First offender status, taken under advisement, dismissed after a year or something like that. I know.
56) Was not meant for you, but for post #56 the guy who hates cops. Do you hate cops?
Oh yeah, he was shot attempting to enforce the law. Maybe that has something to do with peace to.
1) If the guy said that he stole the stuff, then the cops would know the information was illegally obtained and could not be used legitimately. If the guy didn’t say he stole the stuff, that would still leave open the question of how the cops could figure he got it legitimately.
2) According to yesterday’s post, court testimony said that the fact that Mr. Frederick was worried that burglars might return played a role in the raid planning. Unless the cops are total morons, they should know that breaking into the dwelling of a man who has particular reason to fear burglary will be dangerous to all concerned.
3) Do you suppose that James Madison just wanted to waste ink when he wrote the “oath or affirmation” language? Can you offer any scenario, under your interpretation, in which cops would be able to receive a warrant in the absence of that language which they could not receive in its presence? If not, what is the purpose of such language?
4) So the cops intended to do hundreds of dollars of damage to the guy’s home, and endanger the lives of many people, for a crime whose punishment–if convicted–would likely be less severe than what they they plan to inflict before they even have cause to arrest?
//Oh yeah, he was shot attempting to enforce the law. Maybe that has something to do with peace to.//
His law, perhaps. But THE law? The one that starts “We the People of the United States of America”?
He and his associates undertook a course of action that they knew would put numerous people in mortal peril. Please explain why either (1) their course of action was substantially preferable to other obvious courses of action which would have been safer for everyone, or (2) the police action was reasonable even though it wasn’t preferable to other courses of action.
The Constitution states that unreasonable searches and/or seizures are illegitimate. I would regard the police behavior in this case as being highly unreasonable, and find it hard to imagine anyone but a totalitarian anarchist doing otherwise.
//Was not meant for you, but for post #56 the guy who hates cops. Do you hate cops?//
The term “cops” is rather vague. I like peace officers, mildly dislike rev’nooers (but recognize that when well-behaved they serve a necessary function), and despise totalitarian anarchists. Do you feel any loyal citizen of the U.S. should not regard those three groups the same way?
CEH –
It’s difficult to imagine that being as obtuse as you clearly are that you possess sufficient brain function to wiggle your fingers and toes. Let me ask you this – are you typing with your nose?
BTW – you need to work on your usage and spelling – fucking up a three-letter word like “too” is embarrassing…
Wow, John, I’m just typing away…didn’t know I was writing an english paper, I think you may be getting my drift even with the misspelled and poorly used words. You could use some of your own advice by the way. Your mind is made up, has been since what, the day after the shooting? I await your synopsis of the trial next week in place of Doc. Tabor.
Radley,
“Wouldn’t you ask how he saw the marijuana? How he had access to the house? Wouldn’t you ask how he knew about the burglary?”
Do we know that they didn’t ask such questions? And if they did, do we know his responses? I think these things will be cleared up next week. Aren’t “both” informants supposed to testify?
The burglary? Well, although the State can bring charges on felony matters on behalf of the victim, they still need a victim. It was just in court the other day that the defense admitted Frederick grew marijuana. Before then, I don’t think Ryan was willing to say yes, what was stolen from my house in the burglary was my marijuana plants. And, you’re assuming he wasn’t asked if he wanted to prosecute. Maybe that question will be answered at the trial as well.
CEH –
So, if I take your meaning correctly, as long as your written contributions are not being graded, it is perfectly acceptable to you, for you to put your regrettable English skills on public display…
I’m not altogether sure what “drift” of yours that I’m getting – in the Navy, we used the term “drifty” to describe someone who was, “a few fries short of a happy meal” (so to speak). Is that what you’re referring to?
Also, I’m a little unclear about what advice of mine that I can use, although I suppose I should be flattered that you feel that my advice is of some value…
Yes, my mind is made up, as is yours (although not since the day after the raid). I see no justification for the manner in which this raid was conducted (a heavily armed mob descending on a flea with a pop-gun). I agree absolutely with Doc Tabor (and many others) that these types of raids are extreme, inherently dangerous and unnecessary in almost all real-world circumstances. Around the country, many serious injuries and deaths have resulted from these types of police raids being conducted – in almost all of these cases, a less “feeding frenzied” approach, by the police, would have resulted in reaching the objective, without the loss of life and limb…
(BTW – “To protect and serve” includes the ungodly, as well as law abiding citizens…)
To dispense with any false impressions that you may have, I hold Professional Law Enforcement Officers in the very highest esteem – it’s the wannabe storm troopers that find their way into most Police Departments, that I have a problem with…
Finally, read Doc Tabors article again, you’ll discover that I am named as the person who will be providing Doc Tabor with an account of what takes place (taking copious notes, as it were) – he will be writing it up, in his usual well-considered and reasonable fashion.
Pax
John,
Apparently, I’m neither as intelligent nor as educated as you. I did not know either was a prerequistite to post on this blog. I apologize. You are “obtuse” (who the f*ck talks like that?) in that you are ignorant as to what it is like to be a law enforcement officer or vice and narcotics detective, yet you feel able to judge their moral character based on this case and this case alone. You know nothing about these people as individuals or how they have spent their careers, yet they are corrupt to you. My “drift” is apparently understood all to well because it pisses you off that someone dare to offer something other than total agreement with you. You don’t see justification, yet you are not a law enforcement officer. You think it was excessive, yet you don’t know what these law enforcement officers have faced before. Do you know how many LODD there have been during the commission of search warrants, how may injuries, how many shooting incidents? You don’t know. Yet you judge their tactics. Could this one incident, or many of the others that Radley highlights, been done differently? Yes, as I’ve said in above posts. I don’t disagree with much of your sentiment, it is your conclusions on the character of these individual officers that I disagree with. Take that for what it may be worth to you. Nothing, I’m sure, coming from me since your mind is made up.
Let’s see, where should I start?
“Obtuse” means “stupid.” Would you have been happier, had I referred to you as “stupid?”
The reason that I used “obtuse,” was to force you to find a dictionary – so that when you looked up “obtuse,” you’d feel, “stupid.”
That particular posting was in response to your referring to me as a “schmuck,” which means “clumsy, stupid and obnoxious.” I may be obnoxious (when provoked) but I’m certainly not clumsy or stupid. Keep in mind that you are the one that resorted to name-calling, which usually makes a person appear ignorant.
You opened the door – I simply slammed it in your face…
Let me ask you this – who the fuck uses a term like, “totality of the event?”
Answer: Captain Dunlap, Det. Roberts, Det. Barone, Sgt. Chambers, and Det. Walker. Hmm…
Five people in a row, using the same unusual term, for describing an event…
Hmm…
Might they all be reciting from the same script? But hey, I’ve never been in Law Enforcement, so what the fuck do I know?
(Am I going too fast for you? No? Good…)
It’s true, I’ve never been in Law Enforcement. However, six years as a military air traffic controller, and 20 years in data processing (designing, writing and maintaining computer software systems), does afford me a vast background and experience in mental agility and acuity, as well as the ability to process and analyze information.
Or, the short version – don’t try to bullshit me – you’ll regret it…
As far as being pissed off at anyone who doesn’t agree with me is concerned, I believe you’re confusing me with yourself – the fact of the matter, is that the majority of people
in Chesapeake ALREADY agree with me. It is the police who are the bad guys…
I’m looking at the situation in a strictly cold and analytical fashion – they same way that I designed computer systems – purely logical, no emotion necessary. It is YOU, who are getting upset, because for the first time, the CPD does not have carte blanche (freedom to do as it pleases), it is being called upon to explain and justify its actions – and it doesn’t know how…
Pax
John (here I go again opening the door – hopefully made of screen so it doesn’t hurt as bad when you slam it in my face),
I apologize for calling you a schmuck.
As far as phrases and terminology used by the officers that are similar or identical; it begins in the police academy when they are required to know, verbatim, the definition of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The “totality of the circumstances” is everything collected by the senses, experienced in the past, learned through training, etc. that can lead an experienced law enforcement officer to reach a conclusion that a lay person would not have reached if merely observing the same incident. Everything must be brought together to meet the probable cause or reasonable suspicion threshold – the totality of the circumstances. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t.
I’m sure your career field in the Navy (and even in IT) had terminology and phrases that every one of your co-workers would have used if asked a similar set of questions about a similar incident or set of circumstances. Is that a reasonable assumption? The use of similar or even identical terminology is a product of training and experience, not conspiracy.
CEH -
I don’t wish to belabor this, so I cited only one of a large number of indicators (to me), that the officers that have testified aren’t (and I’ll be kind) being entirely “forthcoming.”
I also tend (being somewhat logical in my reasoning) to view things in terms of “gain” – i.e. what do these officers have to gain, by giving the impression that they were right and righteous?
(I leave that to your deliberation.)
Conversely, what would Mr. Frederick’s neighbors have to gain (if their testimony refutes that of the police), by giving the impression that the police are lying, and that Mr. Frederick is right and righteous?
(Again, I leave that to your deliberation.)
Pax
CEH, “totality of the circumstances” goes both ways.
Let me expand on I hate cops.
Lets say you are walking down any street in broad daylight, a police officer stops you and tells you to hit the wall, hands up. You totally innocent of any crime. BUT, if you refuse to let the cops search you, demand to know where you are coming from, and where are you going, do you consider that justifiable search as we are protect from by the 4th Amendment. If you refuse to be searched in any degree, you are now a criminal, for refusing the cop to search you. Any refusal is criminal. I justify my anger based upon my experiances from 1945 to 1949 when I was unjustly stopped walking home at any time of the day or night.
I’m white, I was always properly dressed, I was not carrying anything that might suggest I’d stolen anything, but I was arrested at least 12 times, spent a day or two locked up, and then released as innocent of any crime other than not having a car to go places. I was treated as a probable criminal for something, no charge for any specific crime, only on suspicion. In one case, it was only the next day when my employer called to see why I wasn’t at work, found I had not made it home the night before, then contacted my dad, who started checking to see where I was, and found me in jail, suspicion of burglery. When I was stopped one block from my rented room, I explained to the cops that I had just been seated at the lunch counter or a drug store for a half hour, and with someone who could have verified I’d been discussing doing work for his store for at least an hour before, but the cops were so sure that I was guilty, that they would not go by the drug store to verify my being there. Only when my dad got the store owner, and the drug store clerk to verify my innocence was I released, but with the warning they (the cops) were going to be watching me. What a threat.
I’m trying to protect all of you from unreasonable stop and searches, when you are in public. The cops right now can stop anyone, demand you submit to search, jail you if you resist in any manner. You see this happening more and more. Now I’m telling you this will expand to where the cops can knock on your door, and demand everyone in the home produce ID, then the cops can start to demand you show proof of ownership of every item in the home. Then bring in Drug Dogs to see if you have any drugs. Then: well you can imagine how far this can go, as what are you doing with CASH in the home, why isn’t that in the bank? Then when you can’t show a receipt for that new TV the cops confiscate it to aid the police fund. Californian police are taking in up to 3 billion dollars a year in confiscations, and brag that it was probably bought with drug money, so the cops rightfully deserve to take it from you.
Imagine you are stopped for a traffic ticket, and you have $5000 in your billfold, Ah Ha where did you get this money? It is none of the cops business where you got the money, right? Now the cop decides to call in the drug dogs, and the dog identifies your money as contaminated with drugs, while our government already claims 90% of our money is contaminated. Your money is taken, the cops celibrate, your money is gone, and you are in jail.
Innocent, not as far as the cops are concerned.
Look I’m trying to protect all of you, from police abuse, you do not understand that until you are threatened by the police, and you know you are innocent, you do not understand the current failure of our Bill of Rights, I do. If we don’t stand together, we will all hang together.