TheAgitator.com
The Ryan Frederick Trial, Day Three
Friday, January 23rd, 2009Ryan Frederick is 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). My coverage of the first two days of his trial here.
I should note in these updates that I’m not actually in Chesapeake for the trial. My analysis of what’s happening is contingent on reporting from the trial from the Virginian-Pilot newspaper and from local blogger Don Tabor, who is writing up reports from notes he’s taking in the courtroom (and whom I’ve found to be pretty fair in his prior coverage of the case).
Yesterday began with the state calling Jarrond Shivers’ widow to the stand. I found this odd, and a couple of criminal defense attorneys I spoke with (both not related to the case) confirmed my suspicions. I don’t doubt Nicole Shivers’ grief, but her tearful testimony added nothing substantive to what’s at issue in this case: whether Ryan Frederick knew or should have known that the men breaking into his home were police officers. Shivers testified about her first date with her husband, about their relationship, and about the last time she saw him. This sort of testimony at least makes some sense during a sentencing hearing, but during the guilt phase of a criminal trial, it’s inappropriate. It’s only purpose is to spark juror emotions—to put in their head that a "not guilty" verdict may only inflame the widows’ grief.
According to Tabor, Frederick attorney James Broccoletti didn’t object to Shivers taking the stand, though it’s possible that he objected to her inclusion as a witness at an earlier hearing. Broccoletti didn’t respond to an email query (understandably, given that he’s in the middle of a trial). It’s possible that Broccoletti calculated that objecting to allowing Shivers to have her say would lose him sympathy with the jury, particularly if he thought he’d be overruled, anyway. I’d be interested in what readers with a criminal law background think of Nicole Shivers taking the stand.
The rest of the day was taken up by testimony from police officers involved in the raid. They reiterated the claim that they knocked and announced themselves repeatedly. Tabor found their testimony believable. I’ve heard from others at the trail who found them less credible. But I’m not sure their credibility matters. Even taking the officers’ testimony at face value, from the first knock until the battering ram took out the lower panel of his front door, Frederick had at most 25 seconds to wake up, gauge what was going on outside his home, and determine what to do about it. This, while his dogs were going nuts, and after he’d been burglarized days earlier (by the police department’s own informant).
A few other items that came out yesterday that are worth noting:
• On the day of the raid, Frederick bought two dead bolt locks for his door. A relatively minor point, but it helps establish his state of mind the night of the raid.
• Broccoletti conceded that Frederick did at some point grow marijuana plants for personal use, but Frederick adamantly denies ever selling any. The police had no evidence at the time to suggest otherwise. (I don’t know what the state has in store for the trial. It wouldn’t surprise me if they trotted out a jailhouse snitch claiming to have bought marijuana from Frederick). They attempted no controlled buys from Frederick. They surveilled his home and found nothing unusual. The affidavit mentions no complaints from neighbors (the neighbors I’ve spoken to speak highly of him). This raid wasn’t conducted on a community menace. It was conducted on a guy who smoked and sometimes grew pot in his own home, for his own use.
• Indeed, the police officers who testified yesterday conceded that the only evidence they had on Frederick was the word of their informant, Steven Wright. Wright at the time was being held on felony charges related to credit card theft. According to the officers who testified, Wright had helped them on one prior case, and was paid $50.
I should first add that this testimony conflicts with what Renaldo Turnbull (the other man who broke into Frederick’s house with Wright) told me in June, and with what he told the Virginian-Pilot last February. Turnbull said both he and Wright had been working with the police for months, and that the police had encouraged them to illegally break into private homes to obtain probably cause for search warrants.
But let’s assume the police officers are telling the truth. If so, that means they broke into Frederick’s house after nightfall, using a battering ram, based solely on the word of a shady informant who at the time was facing his own felony charges. Not only that, but he didn’t even have the marijuana plants he claimed to have taken. Those plants, if they even exist, have never been in police possession.
• From the Virginian-Pilot:
Roberts, Shivers’ partner in the Frederick case, testified at length about the history of the investigation, the informant used and the surveillance conducted.
He described how they pulled up to the house that night in an unmarked van with the lights off. A second group was in an unmarked car, and a marked patrol unit rolled up past the house.
Dressed mostly in black, they “approached in a stealth manor,” [sic] Roberts said. Shivers was to be the first through the door.
They started pounding on the door, shouting and then trying to break it down with a battering ram.
“I wanted, without a doubt, Mr. Frederick to know that we were the police outside,” Detective Sgt. Scott Chambers said.
This doesn’t make sense. If they wanted Frederick to know there were police outside "without a doubt," why approach the house in a "stealth-like manner"? Why dress in black, and pull up silently in black, unmarked cars? If they wanted Frederick to know "without a doubt" that the police were outside his home, they should have used lights and sirens. Perhaps a bullhorn.
This is the typical position the police take in these cases. They simultaneously maintain that the ninja tactics are necessary to take the suspect by surprise—and that the suspect should have known it was the police who were breaking into his home. The only way to resolve those two positions is to say that the police want to be stealth until they get to the door, at which point they want to be loud and boisterous. That is, they want to take the suspect by surprise until just before entry, at which point they want to make it clear who they are. That puts an incredible amount of pressure on, in this case and others, a sleeping person to wake up and correctly ascertain what’s going on.
(I’d encourage readers to experiment sometime. Lay down in a bedroom and have a friend pound on your front door and yell. See if you can decipher what they’re saying, even while awake.)
• As I discussed yesterday, the other gaping hole in the prosecution’s case is that they’re maintaining that even though Steven Wright told them Frederick’s home was broken into three nights before the raid, and even though they knew that Wright was in Frederick’s home the same night it was burglarized, they didn’t know until months later that it was actually Wright who conducted the burglary, and that he conducted it specifically (and illegally) to obtain probable cause for the search warrant.
Again from the Virginian-Pilot:
Roberts’ testimony drew the most intense cross-examination after he named the informant – Steven Wright, whose full name is Steven Rene Wright. The police have refused until the trial to name him.
Also for the first time, Wright was identified as the person who alerted police to a break-in at Frederick’s house days before the raid.
Wright failed, however, to tell police that it was he who broke into Frederick’s garage and stole several marijuana plants, despite being asked “15 times,” Roberts said. Police didn’t learn that until about three months ago, he said.
Again, lots of problems, here. If they had to ask Wright "15 times," might that speak to his trustworthiness as an informant—particularly one on whose word would be the sole reason you conduct a home invasion raid?
Moreover, why would Wright possibly implicate himself by telling the police about the burglary in the first place? Did the police think Frederick invited him in? Did they ask Wright how he was able to take several plants without Frederick noticing?
The state seems to be arguing that Wright came to the police that night and said something to the effect of, "Okay, I found several marijuana plants in the guy’s garage tonight. I took a few. Don’t ask me how I got them. Also, I don’t have the actual plants anymore. Must have lost them. But I’m sure they were marijuana. Trust me on that. Also, somebody broke into his garage tonight. But it wasn’t me."
And they bought it? In fact, they not only bought it, they bought it enough that they didn’t feel they needed to do any further investigation before conducting a raid?
Seems to be that what Turnbull told me and the Virginia-Pilot is a far more plausible explanation. The cops had an arrangement with these guys. The cops looked the other way while their informants illegally broke into homes to get probable cause. That would explain why the cops knew on the night of the raid that Frederick’s house had been burglarized three nights earlier (and were recorded saying as much).
Finally, we still don’t know if Turnbull and Wright been charged for burglarizing Ryan Frederick’s home. If not, why not?
The use of no-knock, or quick knock/announce tactics is justified by drug warriors (like Scalia) when the evidence sought might be destroyed prior to the police invading and securing the premises.
One problem: You can’t flush a grow operation!
A man is dead. And the best the state can do is try to ruin the life of a second person to cover up their own stupidity and lack of personal or professional responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves.
But they’re not… Instead they’re proud.
“Why do you think we call drug warriors DOPES!”
And I would hope that anyone that ever serves on a jury would say “we don’t care about the widow, we only care about rendering a JUST and FAIR verdict”. If a decision inflames the widow’s grief further, that’s her problem.
Then reality hit me in the face and said people are stupid, and that the jury system is rigged to the point where you can’t get a fair trial due to judges being allowed to control what is asked by prosecution and defense — something I’ve never understood. Should be open season in the courtroom, and if a line of questioning appears irrelevant, then the judge can cut them off.
this is sad in so many ways. it just sucks the life out of me
Radley,
I would guess that Frederick’s attorney objected and filed a motion to that effect. This issue would typically be hashed out away from the jury and in a less publicly attended hearing. If he simply allowed this woman to testify without a peep, then that’s borderline malpractice and could be grounds for an ineffective assistance claim (not necessarily an overturning, but certainly a solid claim).
Todays Pilot article.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/01/officer-testifies-frederick-trial-he-saw-movement-house-shooting
Just reading one day’s worth of this trial and it’s obvious that Occam’s Razor would make a bloody mess of the prosecution’s case. How credulous do they think the jurors are?
I’d be insulted if I were sitting on that jury.
Then again, I’d have probably been knocked off the list right off the bat, what with the extra letters after my name.
I actually like the jury system, but I think juries should be allowed to question witnesses. Stated slightly differently, I think the judge should be relegated to a purely “referee” role in defining the rules, the flow, etc. in the court room, really presiding over the proceedings and the manner in which they’re conducted, but let the jury actually have some latitude to determine what’s going on.
Here’s the money quote from the new story:
“Another detective, who was with the rear team heading toward the garage, said he didn’t hear any of the noise from the front of the house until after the shooting.”
So, no announcement, no “8-ball” (these kids and the codes they use while playing soldier!), no GUNSHOT. Yet Frederick should have heard the same (alleged) announcement while inside the house with his dogs barking, and, if I recall correctly, the TV on.
I am just amazed at the fortitude of this one detective, who it appears is telling the truth in a situation where there is likely a lot of pressure not to do so.
Radley, I have to apologize.
I know you have put a lot of heart and effort into the Ryan Frederick case, but the whole thing is so damn depressing I can’t bear to read about it.
Thank you for your work.
He is so screwed. The widow’s testimony, the drug admission… considering what type of jurors (i.e., ones with a brain) the prosecutor likely kept off the jury….
ugh. I really do hope that Broccoletti objected to the widow’s testimony somewhere so he can still use it on appeal. I don’t practice criminal law, all I know is what I learned in Criminal Procedure/Criminal Law/Evidence in law school and for the bar exam… but there’s no way that her testimony should have been allowed. It’s terribly prejudicial with no probative value.
Re comments on jurors – man, I am fully informed (as in FIJA, the Fully-Informed Jury Association). I have been called for jury duty twice, both on drug charges, both of which I would have voted not guilty, end of story. I know how to answer questions (see FIJA again) so as not to perjure myself to get on the jury.
The problem is this – no one who is halfway intelligent or competent to reason (such as, “I don’t care about the widow’s emotions, this guy gets a fair trial) was even close to making it on the jury (I was not even called up for questioning during selection in the more recent case). Anyone whose profession was anything with a college degree (practically)(exceptions were people in banking, for some reason) didn’t even have a chance. Engineers must be seen as waay too rational to be on a jury, both sides excused anyone who said they were an engineer or programmer (or anything in IT) summarily. I think they are looking for people who are a) as stupid as possible and b) as emotional as possible. I hope this case goes differently, and that somehow these jurors can put together questions like Radley raises enough to say “not guilty” but I have my serious doubts…..
If I was on the jury, the crying widow would make me think that the prosecution has no case.
SHE WAS NOT THERE!!!! How can anything she says be relevant? Might as well put me on the stand. I wasn’t there either.
If that’s the best they could do, then the case would be over for me as a juror. My decision would be solidly for defense from that point.
I keep saying, ‘There’s no way he gets convicted,’ but… this is scary. I don’t understand how some of the people on the prosecution team sleep at night, knowing a man’s life hangs in the balance.
Broccoletti can turn her testimony against the state by explaining to the jury that the real culprit here is the department. What he needs to do is show that Frederick, despite being a casual drug user, was like them: liked by his neighbors, respected by his employer, a soon-to-be family man with a fiance. Take away the drugs and “it could have been any one of you, scared out of your mind after a vindictive son of a gun broke into your house, facing down people trying to break into your house for reasons you can’t even imagine.”
They don’t believe that anything will happen to them if they sacrifice a man’s life for the sake of their career.
What allows me to sleep at night knowing that our system is being steadily filled with such men is the knowledge that God will one day unleash His wrath against them.
Mr. Frederick’s attorney sounds like a dunce.
He should have STRENUOUSLY objected to the policeman’s widow being allowed to testify. She had NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS concerning what transpired, unless she was there.
She wasn’t a witness to the crime.
It’s a standard prosecutor ploy to inflame the jury’s sympathy against the defendant.
And, why admit that Mr. Frederick ever grew one leaf of marijuana?
The defense attorney is a blockhead.
RIGHT ON about the contradictory elements of a knock-down-the- door-raid:
Creep up steathily in unmarked cars in the dead of night.
Dress all in black.
No lights.
No sound.
Then, start pounding on the door screaming something to wake up the resident, and then one second later start battering down a door when unsurprisingly the door goes unanswered.
And, the police actually act SURPRISED when someone confused homeowner aroused from slumberland comes up shooting?
Judges who sign these No-Knock warrants are signing someone’s Death Sentence.
And, they know it.
“but there’s no way that her testimony should have been allowed. It’s terribly prejudicial with no probative value.”
“If I was on the jury, the crying widow would make me think that the prosecution has no case.”
AMEN!!
I’m not just surprised but almost shocked this idiot “nifong” is attempting by such a move. I also can’t imagine a real judge allowing such a display as move one on the board. AMAZING!!
We are all dancing around the most important trial question: Does Ryan Frederick take the stand??
Assuming the State’s case does not suffer a “glove don’t fit” moment, I think Ryan has to take the stand. Of course, it is a risk, but on balance I think the risk is worth the reward. Not taking the stand is also a risk. This is not a “who done it” case. We know who fired the shot. I think the jury has to hear from Ryan concerning what he saw and thought at the time he pulled the trigger. On cross, Ryan does not have to defend a complex explanation. He did not know they were cops and the jailhouse snitches are lying.
I’ll answer the last question first. No, the burglars (Wright & Turnbull) were not charged with the burglary. Mr. Broccoletti actually asked this question of Detective Roberts. The answer was “No – because there was no victim. Nothing of value was reported to have been taken.”
There was a lot of “What the Fuck?!?!?!” on a lot of faces, including the jurors.
As soon as Mrs. Shiver’s backside hit the witness chair, the waterworks began – passing the hanky from hand to hand, dabbing her eyes. That is the only time I’ve seen any waterworks. The rest of the time (as she sits in full view of the jury) she seems to be quite taken with the CPD Sergeant that sits next to her every day. From the way she smiles at him, and touches him, and in general, seems to be enjoying his closeness, you’d almost think that there might be something going on…
(If you were a cynical person, that is…)
The point here is that if she’s trying to convince the jury that she’s the “grieving widow,” she’s already blown her cover…
I’m sure that Mr. Broccoletti is perfectly content to allow Mrs. Shivers to put a few broadsides into the prosecution’s case…
I have a bad feeling this. I think this going to end in conviction.
“as she sits in full view of the jury”
So now witnesses are also allowed to sit as spectators too?
There is a lot of strategy that goes into preparing a trial. It is possible that the widow’s testimony is perfectly legitimate – the state does have to prove that a person died, and their favorite way is to bring in someone close to the dead person to say “yep, he was a person.” They are granted latitude in it.
The defense has a couple options: acknowledge regret for the death, treat the grieving person kindly, cross-examine the witness as to the deceased’s character, etc. There are so many things that can be done and each trial is different.
The only way to prevent it is a motion in limine made before the jury comes in, telling the judge that its relevance is outweighed by how prejudicial it is, but that is still an uphill battle. How Frederick’s attorney addresses this in the end will give you insight to his overall trial strategy.
It is way too early in the case to judge how it is going. As a criminal defense attorney, I’ve sat through a damning trial only to have jurors tell me I won them over during closing arguments.
The jury needs someone to connect the dots for them – the side that does it in the most convincing manner is the side that wins.
Oh yeah – why is the widow sitting through the trial? Aren’t the witnesses sequestered? That’s the best way to keep grieving widows from testifying – ask the court to have witnesses kept out of the courtroom during the entire trial (so they can’t change their story based on what others say) and refuse to release any witness from their subpoena until the trial is over. That keeps them off the stand, since 9 times out of 10, the relative wants to watch the trial more than they want to testify.
” the burglars (Wright & Turnbull) were not charged with the burglary. Mr. Broccoletti actually asked this question of Detective Roberts. The answer was “No – because there was no victim. Nothing of value was reported to have been taken.”
Isnt burglary the act of entering with intent to commit some other crime. You dont actually have to take anything in order to be charged with burglary do you? In my state you dont.
“I have a bad feeling this. I think this going to end in conviction.”
Well, I have a good feeling that it won’t. The trial is just starting. I think the jurors will see through the prosecution.
The jury needs someone to connect the dots for them – the side that does it in the most convincing manner is the side that wins.
In this particular case, it would seem that some of the actions by the police are so mind-bogglingly outrageous that even “law-and-order” jurors would realize that in this particular case of “cops and robbers”, the “cops” were, in fact, robbers. I don’t think that trying to portraying police in a negative light is usually a good defense strategy, but from the descriptions posted here it seems like the police are cheerfully describing their own bad conduct (even though they don’t see it as bad).
I wonder if the defense might be planning to paint both Mr. Frederick and the decedent as victims of a gang of rogues within the police department? Let the jury feel outrage, but then channel their outrage away from the defendant. Such a strategy might make sense if manslaughter were a possible verdict. Jurors that regarded the whole incident as unfortunate might convict Mr. Frederick of manslaughter, even if they don’t think he could have known that the invaders were police, because they think he should have been more certain of who he was shooting at. On the other hand, jurors who are outraged at the police conspiracy against Mr. Frederick would vote for outright acquittal, and may publicly state that the wrong people were on trial.
“Mr. Broccoletti actually asked this question of Detective Roberts. The answer was ‘No – because there was no victim. Nothing of value was reported to have been taken.’”
Well, I for one am glad to hear that the Chesapeake Police Department doesn’t waste its time going after the perpetrators of victimless crime.
Oh…never mind.
Todays tidewater update.
http://tidewaterliberty.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/frederick-trial-day-4-friday
If this weren’t so deadly serious, that would be really funny.
T. Reed – You are correct that the decision to have Ryan testify is a key issue. I also think I can tell you how this will play out – Ryan will testify, for the reasons you noted; its very hard to put on a defense in a case like this if the defendant does not get on the stand, look the jury in the eye, and say “I didn’t know it was a police officer.”
Of course, the State’s case is B.S., which is why they will do everything they can to throw Ryan off during their cross-examination; they will want him to appear nervous and flustered, and they will try to exploit any inconsistency.
I can virtually guarantee that at the end of the day, all of the “evidence” put on by the State will be forgotten about, and the prosecutors will spend 90% of their time in closing attacking Ryan’s demeanor when he is on the stand; their argument will boil down to “Ryan looked shifty, that means that whatever he testified to, the opposite is true, therefore Ryan knew he was shooting at an officer.” This line of attack will show up in rebuttal as a way for the State to ignore the lack of affirmative evidence on the intent element of the crime.
So, what to do? I think, even knowing how this will play out, Broccoletti still has to have Ryan testify; then, in his closing, he should explicitly call the prosecutors out on their bait and switch – “They promised you a case based on evidence, but the evidence they put on is a joke; they have no evidence, so they want you to speculate on Ryan’s state of mind just because he was nervous testifying with his life at stake, and was being bullied by an experienced trial lawyer. Don’t fall for their trick – They promised you they would show Ryan’s guilt through the evidence they put on, and they haven’t come close to doing that – And the reason they can’t, the simplest explanation for their failure, is that Ryan isn’t guilty.”
Mrs. Shivers was first to testify, she is not on the defense witness list, and Broccoletti has released her from any further cross examination, so her testimony cannot be tainted by witnessing the trial.
“Well, I for one am glad to hear that the Chesapeake Police Department doesn’t waste its time going after the perpetrators of victimless crime.
Oh…never mind.”
Oh how I wish the defense could work that one in somehow.
The officer in charge of the raiding unit made a casual, careless, routine decision to break into the house even though there was no urgency that would have led to such a necessity. He didn’t think about the possible consequences or about how his raid looked to the person being raided.
I think that officer should have been charged with manslaughter, but of course he never will be charged with anything.
Re: John Wilburn’s post…
“The point here is that if she’s trying to convince the jury that she’s the “grieving widow,” she’s already blown her cover…”
Hey Wilburn – if she’s not the grieving widow, who is? Mrs. Shivers was married to Detective Shivers for many years. Together, they were raising three children. She will grieve his loss for the rest of her life. How much should she cry in the courtroom in order to convince you that she and her children are completely devastated at the loss of her husband and their father. It is now up to her to raise three kids by herself. Remember something – regardless of the outcome of this case, she didn’t ask for any of this!!!
If you want to talk your sensless trash about the Government’s handling of the case, most can stomach it. The fact that you would make such disparaging remarks about the widow is a true testament to YOUR lack of character and scruples. Apparently you have never sustained such a loss. I can only hope that if you do, you will have half of her strength.
By the way…that CPD Sergeant was a friend and co-worker of Detective Shivers and has been assigned as the Department/family liason since this tragedy occurred. In other words, you cynical moron, he is supposed to sitting with the family.
Hey Flack:
Rest assured that the OIC for the Op very carefully considered the risk associated and reviewed same with the case detectives. No different than a military operation, sometimes risks are taken to get the job done. Sometimes people get injured and killed on what can be considered a moderate risk Op. It’s a projection, not an absoulute. Police actions are most often dictated by suspect behavior. That’s why these lines of work are considered dangerous and not for everyone. You can bet that the safety of all involved was considered to include RF. For the officers to testify that they couldn’t believe the “idiot” was shooting at them tells me that they gave said idiot extra consideration considering his break-in which he never bothered to report. If he was so flippin scared, why didn’t he get the police involved from the beginning?
Mr. Tabor – let me first say that while we are not on the same page as to this case, I appreciate that you have not been reckless in your posts and that you seem to be keeping an open mind with regard to the testimony you have heard.
Second – Detective Shivers wife is allowed, pursuant to statute, to remain in the courtroom because she is the spouse of the decedent.
Lloyd,
I think Shivers was probably one of the officers deciding how to serve the search warrant. Anyone else have more info on that (I know you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, but let’s call a spade a spade). I agree that there was no justifcation for the “home invasion” type tactics they employed to serve the warrant.
The decision serve the warrant at night, and by sneaking up to his house and breaking down the door, should have resulted in criminal charges against Shivers, if he had not died that night.
@Appleseed,
I have more on Shivers, which I will post after the trial is over. As to this particular warrant, I don’t think he had any authority over deciding how to serve it.
Thanks Rick, I look forward to it. From reading some of the Tidewater Liberty Blog updates, it looks like my initial assumption that Shivers was making all the decisions about how to execute the raid is incorrect.
Lima Charlie -
My sincere apologies to Mrs. Shivers and her children _ I meant no disrespect to her, or callousness about her grief and loss…
@whim #16,
Broccoletti is anything but a dunce. When the case you are building is that the cops are lying to cover their own asses, you don’t have the luxury of not being completely up front about something the prosecution is able to prove anyway. Pointing out the detail that the crowbar is missing from the reenactment video, when it was photographed in the forensic evidence from the actual scene was sheer genius. He’s going to be able to show that the testimony is coming from the reenactment, rather than the event itself. Each detail of that sort is going to add up.
As to not objecting anymore strenuously than he did, what do you think the headline would have been in the news if he did? Does he want to add to the sympathy factor? Besides, if Ryan is convicted, he has his grounds for appeal right there.
Lima Charlie,
What was wrong with waiting half an hour if need be rather than half a minute before breaking down the door? There was no risk of evidence destruction, the ususual justification given for these tactics.
Didn’t it ever occur to the officers involved that their tactics could scare someone out of their wits? Breaking the door down should be a last resort not an habitual action. Breaking the door down was in this case a reckless irresponsible action. He was not given a reasonable chance to comply with the demand to open the door. The attempt to identify temselves appears to have been inadequate, more an attempt to cover themseves and say that they had identified themselves then a true attempt to do so. A true attempt to identify sthemselves as police would have lasted longer.
John Wilburn probably is a bit too cynical about Mrs. Shivers but she set herself up for this by allowing herself to be used in an emotional appeal of this type.
The Johnny Appleseed of Crack,
From the evidence given so far in the trial the decision to actually break in was made by the officer in charge on the spot. Any charges should have been made against him rather than Shivers or other members of the squad.
Oh, I prefer not to address Lima Charlie. He’s either a cop or a badgelicker.
If he’s a badgelicker, he’s persona non grata to me.
If he’s a cop, anything I say can and will be used against me…
Hey appleseed -
You need to educate yourself about the laws concerning search warrants and when they can be served. Enough said!
Since people who don’t share your views have to be “badgelickers”, your new official name in all blogs will hereafter be FREDERICK LICKER. I’m a bit short on time this evening, but ill be getting back to you. Cheers!
Mr. Caldwell-
I respect your redaction of your previous comments about Mrs. Shivers. I hope she would never learn of them to begin with. I can only imagine that regardless of the outcome of the trial there will be no “win” for her or her kids.
Lima Charlie-
You say ‘If he was so flippin scared, why didn’t he get the police involved from the beginning?’
Most people around here try to avoid inviting the govt into their lives. The cops aren’t obligated to protect us and it’s been shown repeatedly that they can’t. There are many stories and videos of the harm caused by aggressive policing.
‘You need to educate yourself about the laws concerning search warrants and when they can be served. Enough said!’
My understanding is that this was a no-knock raid in a state that doesn’t recognize no-knock raids. I’ve been educating myself about warrants. There’s been so much abuse of warrants (from the president on down) in recent history, that I’m finding most warrants are suspect. The govt seems to be making bypassing the 4th amendment a policy.
“…If he was so flippin scared, why didn’t he get the police involved from the beginning?”
The Police WERE involved from the beginning. That’s kinda the problem.
Ladies and Gentlemen- there is no constitutional nor statutory requirement to knock and announce. Just refer to Brocoletti’s cross of Sgt. Chambers. I’m not sure why its an issue since there were several knocks and announcements in this case.
Lima Charlie-
The constitutional requirements for warrant servicing and searches are well-documented. The erosions of the amendment due to alcohol and drug prohibition are easy to research.
What I hope happens with this trial- the evidence reveals a peaceful man who felt he was rightfully defending his home and Mr. Frederick regains his freedom. I hope that warrant servicing and informant policies are revised for the sake of the citizens and leo’s. These aggressive policing policies against regular citizens will only cause more tragedies. Correcting this could be Det. Shivers legacy.
You seem to be aggressively defending the state. What would you like to see happen here? What was the benefit of going after Mr. Frederick in the first place? Do you feel the police acted properly throughout the investigation?
Lima Charlie,
No evidence has been presented that would suggest that he was growing for distribution. Given the criticism that the police have been under and their practice of parading any seized drugs most of us believe that he was not growing for distribution. If they had any convincing evidence we believe that they would have displayed it already.
The testimony of any prison informants or of the burgulars is very weak evidence indeed and that appears to be all that they have.
The prosecution’s version of events just does not make sense. We have no reason to disbelieve his claim that he believed that he was dealing with robbers. Why would he get into a firefight with police that he could only loose?
Half a minute is not enough time to respond to the anouncement. We have no reason to doubt his claim that he did not understand the anouncement. Under the circumstances with the surprise and the noise of the dogs it would be surpring if he had.
This case looks like vindicative scapegoating for their own failures.
Marty
I feel that RF is criminally responsible for shooting through a closed door at human being whose intentions, in a light most favorable to RF, were either unknown or should have been known. I believe enough in the system to allow the jurors to decide at what level RF is responsible and to punish him accordingly.
Please direct me to which article or amendment to the constitution or any published appelate court decision which rules on the constitutionality of search warrants executed without a knock and announce. Again, I’m not sure why its an issue since there were several knocks and announcements in this case.
RF was not a regular citizen. He was manufacturing an illegal substance for the purpose of distribution. If you think it should be legal to grow pot, write your congressman. As long as it is not, you should expect the police to investigate such crime and deal with same in a manner in which law, training, policy and extensive police and tactical experience dictate. I have not seen anything in this case that reflects any wrong doing by the police.
If you had the opportunity to know Detective Shivers or anthing meaningful about him, you would know his legacy. It would have little to do with a blog opinion on when people who sit within the security of their homes decide how the men and women in the arena of law enforcement should catch law breakers.
Sorry about the multiple posts!
“If you had the opportunity to know Detective Shivers or anthing meaningful about him, you would know his legacy. It would have little to do with a blog opinion on when people who sit within the security of their homes decide how the men and women in the arena of law enforcement should catch law breakers.”
…”Security of their homes”
HEY ASSHOLE!!!!
This is what we’re talking about! We AREN’T sitting in the security of our homes! Our homes can be invaded AT ANY TIME by a bunch of assault weapon wielding thugs who can accidentally blow us away with NO REPERCUSSIONS to themselves.
All Detective Shivers had to do was walk up to the door and press the door bell. When the guy answered, he would say “I have a warrant for your arrest”.
Lima Charlie-
‘Please direct me to which article or amendment to the constitution or any published appelate court decision which rules on the constitutionality of search warrants executed without a knock and announce.’
The 4th amendment.
I’m not sure this was a ‘knock and announce’ situation. There are lots of questions to be answered. A quick search of ‘no knock search warrant ruling’ kicks up 30,000 articles, many of them scholarly debates about inconclusive court rulings. I’m amazed that anyone who reads even a few articles about this subject would be comfortable having cops knock in doors based on the word of an informant.
‘If you had the opportunity to know Detective Shivers or anthing meaningful about him, you would know his legacy. It would have little to do with a blog opinion on when people who sit within the security of their homes decide how the men and women in the arena of law enforcement should catch law breakers.’
I don’t know Det. Shivers and I offer my heartfelt condolences to his family. We won’t know Det Shivers legacy in law enforcement until the facts of the case emerge. The reason people on this blog are so passionate about the subject is that Ryan Frederick’s security in his home was taken away, as could any of ours be taken away, based on some informant’s information. Since we pay for our law enforcement, I feel we have a BIG say in how laws should be enforced, particularly victim-less crimes.
‘RF was not a regular citizen.’ Bullshit. We’re incarcerating more citizens in this country than anywhere else in the world. It’s becoming impossible not to break the law- SWAT teams have been deployed to break up private poker games! RF held a job, paid taxes, took care of his home, and was a good enough man that his friends, neighbors and family have rallied around him to show support.
‘I have not seen anything in this case that reflects any wrong doing by the police.’ By aggressively pursuing a man who wasn’t harming anyone- one man is dead and another has been locked up for over a year. 2 families have been negatively impacted. All this damage because of how the police chose to enforce a minor drug crime. I see lots of wrong doing by the police…
If I’m in bed ,late at night or early morning ,and someone is yelling something I can’t make out, then I hear my door being smashed down,what should I do? I’m going to go get my article of self protection ,and protect myself from whatever is trying to come into my home.
This is a demonstration of why these types of raids are flawed. These raids DO NOT make it safer for LEO or the homeowner, who has a presumption of 4th ammendment rights. And so , this sort of tragedy WILL happen again! Unless we come to our senses sooner or later.
Whats the over/under on limabean charlie being a cop?
Claude (#57)
He uses a lot of words that he clearly doesn’t understand, so it would be an even bet…
“He uses a lot of words that he clearly doesn’t understand, so it would be an even bet…”
Yeah. His posting times seem to synch up closely with a poster over at the va pilot under the name “Loyal1″. Demeanor is the same too but that really doesnt tell me much as they all have the same personality traits.
Claude (#59)
He gave Rick Caldwell credit for my apology to Mrs. Shivers – is it any wonder that these people end up raiding the wrong address, and shooting the wrong suspect (or their dog)?
Of course, if he were able to think, and make his own decisions, he might be even more dangerous…
“He gave Rick Caldwell credit for my apology to Mrs. Shivers – is it any wonder that these people end up raiding the wrong address, and shooting the wrong suspect (or their dog)?”
(rofl/chortlesnort)
“Of course, if he were able to think, and make his own decisions, he might be even more dangerous…”
They dont like to hire the high IQ ones.
//Ladies and Gentlemen- there is no constitutional nor statutory requirement to knock and announce. //
Is it reasonable for police to deliberately prevent the target of a search warrant from knowing that there are police searching his house, and yet simultaneously blame him for not knowing that the people raiding his house are police?
I would suggest that such conduct is patently unreasonable, and any jury before whom such a question was put would find likewise.
The Constitution explicitly says that unreasonable searches are illegitimate. The only argument you could make regarding the legitimacy of this search was that it was “reasonable”. If the question of fact is put before a jury (as must be all questions of fact) I doubt you’d find much support.
Lima Charlie – There is no specific statute on Knock and Announce searches in VA. Guidance is from SCOTUS decisions.
But do you really want to argue that because something incredibly reckless and irresponsible is legal, if done by police, then it SHOULD be done?
There are circumstances where a forcible entry is justified, such as when there is evidence easily and quickly destroyed, hostages may be present, or armed and dangerous criminals who are unlikely to surrender without violence are best taken by surprise. None of these conditions were present in this case.
Of course, you can’t allow someone to defy a search warrant indefinitely, so at some point a forced entry would be justified on any warrant, but that should be only after it is absolutely certain the citizen understands the police are there and is knowingly defiant.
So, what is the justification for putting lives at risk by rushing and giving him only 25 seconds, at most, to evaluate the situation and rationally choose whether to open the door or not? I’ve been asking that question at Tidewater Liberty for a year now, and have received no answer.
Mr. Wilburn –
Please allow me to give credit where credit is due and credit you for the apology. I mistakenly gave credit to someone else – I will offer no excuse.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-5955.ZO.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-473.ZO.html
For the sake of discussion, the above links are to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that deal with the common law requirement for knock and announce and when no-knocks are reasonable.
The RF case deals with a knock and announce where the officers, by their own testimony, acknowledge that they waited additional time in this case because the evidence was not considered to be destructable and that they wanted to very certain that RF had every opportunity to know they were the police. At some point, you have to think about officer safety. When Officer Duncan called the eight-ball (per his testimony), Sergeant Chambers decided to hold the entry team in place for a few more seconds.
The eightball tells the TL that the defendant now knows that the police are in fact outside, yet he is not going to open the door. So, now the TL has to think about whether or not the suspect is arming himself to launch an attack before or after the breach, whether or not the destroying other evidence that could be relevant to the case, or is he going to attempt to flee. Who knows what his intentions are?
The evidence in the case at hand doesn’t suggest that RF was sleeping at 8:30pm (not the middle of the night) as Brocoletti asserted in his opening remarks. The evidence shows a fairly made bed with an ashtry atop the comforter in the master bedroom. That seemed pretty clear to the jury. The theory that he was sleeping is blown.
Further, RF while in the front left corner bedroom (converted to a TV room) had apparently been grinding a bud to pack his bong for another smoke. (Hence the loose marijuana on top of the Scarface paraphernalia.) The jury should know that if you only have a few grams of pot left because you had to get rid of your plants, you’re not going to go to bed and leave it so precariously loose where your dogs or anyone else could knock it on the floor. Marijuana (once dried) left open to the air erodes in quality as the THC diminishes.
Dr. Tabor: I understand your question. The fact is that the police were present with a search warrant in hand commanding them to search the residence. Entry timing decisions are made at the door based on the totality of the circumstances (except in the case of a pre-planned no-knock where the suspect is known to be violent). I think the case agent and the TL’s timing was reasonable based on the time of day, size of the house and movement observed from within the residence. When that movement did not result in an open door, I think it is reasonable to conclude that further efforts in the way of knocking would have been futile and/or the suspect is preparing for flight or fight, or that he may be in the process of destroying evidence or preparing a breaching obstacle or barricade to prevent entry. We can’t expect the police to pack up and go home. At the end of the day, they have a job to do. RF could have avoided all of this by not being involved in criminal activity. As far as I’m concerned, he asked for the police to come to his home. He was given the opportunity to open the door and he did not. In fact, after he killed Detective Shivers, we waited five more minutes to come out of the house.
You should see the size of the hole in the door that he should have used to ID the officers outside.
I guess my question is this – (in a light most favorable to RF) If RF had what appears to be a pit bull and a handgun, shouldn’t he have felt secure enough to take a position of cover until he could properly determine what was going on? I doubt this jury will believe he was so scared and that he didn’t know or shouldn’t have known it was the police.
//But do you really want to argue that because something incredibly reckless and irresponsible is legal, if done by police, then it SHOULD be done?//
If something is “reckless” and “irresponsible”, wouldn’t that also tend to imply it was “unreasonable”?
Supercat –
The beauty of our system is that the jury (trier of fact in this case) will have the last word on what I feel is reasonable and you feel is unreasonable. The evidence will speak for itself. Forget opening and closing remarks for both sides.
//The beauty of our system is that the jury (trier of fact in this case) will have the last word on what I feel is reasonable and you feel is unreasonable.//
If the jury were told that they should acquit Mr. Frederick if they find the police action unreasonable, they would acquit in a heartbeat. Do you really believe jurors will be told they have the last word on that subject?
This carefully selected jury pool that Brocoletti assured the court could be assembled in Chesapeake to be fair and impartial, will have to decide for themselves the credibility of each witness and apply the appropriate weight to the testimony of each. What ever they decide, I am prepared to accept.
“RF was not a regular citizen. He was manufacturing an illegal substance for the purpose of distribution. If you think it should be legal to grow pot, write your congressman. As long as it is not, you should expect the police to investigate such crime and deal with same in a manner in which law, training, policy and extensive police and tactical experience dictate. I have not seen anything in this case that reflects any wrong doing by the police.”
What evidence is there he was manufacturing for sale?
Even so, Virginia is a filthy cigarette state that has caused more death and addiction with their bright leaf poison, and has this delusion that their drug laws are constitutional and somehow “moral.” When we see the costs of the drug war and its protection of adulterated misbranded cigarettes we know what is meant by that dopey phrase “virginia values.’
Wrong.
The world shall one day take Virginia to task for her lying corruption, and force her to pay back any and all persons she has criminally kidnapped and extorted under the guise of fighting [certain] drugs.