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.

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?

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.

If something is “reckless” and “irresponsible”, wouldn’t that also tend to imply it was “unreasonable”?

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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…

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.

He uses a lot of words that he clearly doesn’t understand, so it would be an even bet…

‘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…

…”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”.

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.

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.