Reason Magazine

Site Search

Informant Revealed in Chesapeake Raid?

Radley Balko | May 19, 2008, 12:47pm

Some potentially big news in the Chesapeake, Virginia drug raid this past January that resulted in the death of Chesapeake PD Det. Jarrod Shivers, and sent 28-year-old Ryan Frederick to jail on murder charges.

Local news station WTKR reporter Stacy Smith was given access to letters Frederick has written to friends and relatives. From those, she has determined that the informant in the case is 20-year-old named "Steven." The station isn't yet reporting the man's full name. Chesapeake PD refuses to confirm his identity.

The informant was apparently dating the sister of Frederick's fiance. Prior to the raid, Frederick and the informant got into an argument after Frederick accused him of stealing something from his home. According to Frederick, the informant threateningly promised he'd be back—which may explain the break-in just prior to the raid.

The informant has a shady past, including arrest for trespassing, a spotty employment history, and—most interestingly—a grand larceny arrest for credit card theft and credit card fraud just prior to the raid. After the raid, the grand larceny charge against the informant was dismissed. The fraud charge was set aside. The fraud charge was later reinstated. "Steven" was due in court to face that charge last week, but didn't show. He's now considered a fugitive.

Smith writes:

According to the affidavit for the search warrant that informant is the only source for the raid. There were no corroborating confidential informants. There was no surveillance. There were no undercover dope buys.

If Smith is correct, the police took the word of an unemployed guy with a grudge, a criminal record, and who had just been arrested for stealing credit cards, all in order to conduct a nighttime raid on a guy who had no prior record, and for whom neighbors and former employers have nothing but praise. They apparently did no corroborating investigation. A cop died as a result. And now they want to bring the hammer down on Ryan Frederick to account for their mistakes.

It's increasingly looking like Ryan Frederick is not only innocent, but that he has a compelling civil rights suit against the city of Chesapeake and its police department.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Is Being Mean Online a… | Main | Conservative America, Progressive Europe »

Comments to "Informant Revealed in Chesapeake Raid?":

Naga Sadow | May 19, 2008, 12:51pm | #

I really hope he wins that future civil suit too! Would make my year.

Steve Verdon | May 19, 2008, 12:51pm | #

If Smith is correct, the police took the word of an employed guy...
Should that read,

If Smith is correct, the police took the word of an unemployed guy...

Bingo | May 19, 2008, 12:54pm | #

This has got to be some of the worst police work I've ever seen, and thats discounting what it resulted in.

Pinette | May 19, 2008, 12:56pm | #

And yet Ryan Fredericks is still sitting in a cell.

Art-P.O.G. | May 19, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Sobering. Really awful.

In a better world, I'd hope the police and law enforcement in general would consider this an example of what NOT to do. Unfortunately, they may just try to throw the book at the young man and walk away.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 19, 2008, 1:01pm | #

In a better world the police officers involved would have been fired and jailed.

Episiarch | May 19, 2008, 1:05pm | #

It's very fucked up when the real world is turning out to be more and more a version of The Shield, but where Mackey and crew are just as dumb as the people they deal with and the people who are supposed to investigate them.

ktc2 | May 19, 2008, 1:14pm | #

I say 99% chance the pursue the murder charge, and 85% chance they get a conviction.

Hey, if they can manipulate a jury into convicting someone of drug trafficing for having two weeks worth of pain meds (with a valid prescription) they can convict anybody (who doesn't have big money).

Neil | May 19, 2008, 1:15pm | #

If we let understandable mistakes deter us from our crusade against the evil that is drugs, the terrorists will win.

Bramblyspam | May 19, 2008, 1:17pm | #

Of course, if he wins a suit against the police department, the costs just get passed on to another innocent party - the taxpayers.

I certainly wouldn't begrudge Ryan Frederick any compensation he may get, he surely deserves something. I just wish it came out of the hides of the officers responsible for this mess.

Invisible Finger | May 19, 2008, 1:22pm | #

Of course, if he wins a suit against the police department, the costs just get passed on to another innocent party - the taxpayers.

Yep, and the lousy police move to another town and work as police.

thoreau | May 19, 2008, 1:24pm | #

Neil | May 19, 2008, 1:15pm | #

If we let understandable mistakes deter us from our crusade against the evil that is drugs, the terrorists will win.
I was about to say that this must be a parody of Neil, but then I realized that there is no difference.

J | May 19, 2008, 1:25pm | #

I certainly wouldn't begrudge Ryan Frederick any compensation he may get, he surely deserves something. I just wish it came out of the hides of the officers responsible for this mess.

Yup.

Jonathan Hohensee | May 19, 2008, 1:30pm | #

If we let understandable mistakes deter us from our crusade against the evil that is drugs, the terrorists will win.
Amen.
The idea of people openly shooting heroin in the street, the inevitable outcome these "libertarians" would like to see happening, will be a larger infringement on our rights then these isolated incidents.

Neil | May 19, 2008, 1:33pm | #

Exactly, Jonathan Hohensee.

It's about protecting our country, its culture and its traditions, and its future. It's for the children.

Francisco Torres | May 19, 2008, 1:35pm | #

The war on drugs and other types of government warfare against voluntary, personal choices, are generating the same kind of atmosphere as existed during the witch hunts of Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and the US, with neighbors or disgruntled individuals accusing others of heresy or witchcraft, as a way to settle old scores or get even, steal their property, et cetera.

How can people look at these actions and not see what they are: the inquisitorial activity of a powerful organization, the State, trying to coerce people into submission? On older times it was to conform to religious dogma - are you really going to think it is not the same now, except to make us to conform to the dogma of the State?

SugarFree | May 19, 2008, 1:39pm | #

"Dear, God! That man is putting a needle in his arm! If only I had a fainting couch! It's exactly as if I were on death row!"

Pro Libertate | May 19, 2008, 1:42pm | #

thoreau,

You should know.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 19, 2008, 1:48pm | #

In my more cynical moments I wonder why these people find saving a junkie from sticking a needle in his vein to be so important. Why it is worth sacrificing my children's inalienable rights. Particularly since you can't save the junkie anyway.

Pinette | May 19, 2008, 1:54pm | #

Drug warriors have no interest in saving anybody. They may tell themselves that their motives have only to do with helping people and saving them from their own self-abuse, but deep down they wish harm on that junkie. Drug users are an outlet for the bloodthirsty tendencies that they cannot express in polite society.

matth | May 19, 2008, 1:55pm | #

It's not about saving the junkie. It's about protecting my right to not have to see anything I find distasteful. Obviously junkies should be shot on sight.

SugarFree | May 19, 2008, 1:57pm | #

Obviously junkies should be shot on sight.

Diabetics too!

The Winter Soldier | May 19, 2008, 2:00pm | #

Up north of the border here, if you are found to be in violation of certain labour standards, you and your employer will both be fined a significant amount of $$$. Your employer is legally barred from paying your share. Too bad that type of legislation is not in effect for these fucktards.
I'd like to see all involved lined up, and bent over, for the ass-raping of their lives over this. The blue brotherhood caused the death of one of their own, and I'll bet not one of them feels any sense of responsibility or guilt. If I was Shivvers'widow, I'd be looking for someone to sue, as well.

ktc2 | May 19, 2008, 2:05pm | #

Pinette is dead on right. It has zero to do with saving or helping anybody. It's all about being able to harm and feel "righteous" about it.

BakedPenguin | May 19, 2008, 2:09pm | #

Pinette / ktc2 - I'd have to agree, there's only a motive to punish - since it's obvious that the drug war isn't stopping anyone from using drugs, the users need to be hurt for violating the morality of the dickheads in power.

Francisco Torres | May 19, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Pinette is dead on right. It has zero to do with saving or helping anybody. It's all about being able to harm and feel "righteous" about it.

Certainly it is one incentive, although there are others more pernicious:

1) The Incentive to obtain more budget money. This is the norm with all bureaucracies, and it is certainly true with anti-drug use enforcement.

2) The Incentive to do as much as possible of the easiest things, to give the impression of being efficient. Fighting real criminals is expensive both in manpower and in results, making it easier to fight defenseless users instead, which in turn make the arrest numbers look impressive.

B | May 19, 2008, 2:24pm | #

Holy crap I can't believe you did another article on this case. Reason has now provided its online readership another chance to embarrass itself by allowing some of the disgusting assholes here a chance to, once again, praise the death of a cop who was enforcing the law, no matter how wrong that particular law may or may not be. I will be shocked if I don't see at least a 10% of the comments claim the cop got what he deserved.

J sub D | May 19, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Of course, if he wins a suit against the police department, the costs just get passed on to another innocent party - the taxpayers.
Yep, and the lousy police move to another town and work as police.
With glowing job recommendations from their former chief.

B | May 19, 2008, 2:32pm | #

"If Smith is correct, the police took the word of an employed guy..."


Yes, this is significant because, as we all know, employment status is some mystical barometer of trustworthiness.

J sub D | May 19, 2008, 2:32pm | #

Holy crap I can't believe you did another article on this case. Reason has now provided its online readership another chance to embarrass itself by allowing some of the disgusting assholes here a chance to, once again, praise the death of a cop who was enforcing the law, no matter how wrong that particular law may or may not be.

Read the comments, dip shit. Than come back acting like an adult.

B | May 19, 2008, 2:36pm | #

"Read the comments, dip shit. Than come back acting like an adult"


Hahahahaah, hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe the above sentence.
And I have read past comments about this case, Mr. Mature. That is why I made the statement I did. Every article about this case has contained a substantial amount of comments praising this cops death, even prompting the author to castigate some of the commenters.
Perhaps you should open your fucking eyes and actually read what I said. I didn't say every comment, Adult-man.

J sub D | May 19, 2008, 2:43pm | #

Quotes genius. The comment that had
...praise the death of a cop who was enforcing the law...
You will find comments condemning incompetent police work and unjustifiable prosecution.

If somebody praised Shivers' death, I missed it. Point it out, please.

LarryA | May 19, 2008, 2:43pm | #

The idea of people openly shooting heroin in the street, the inevitable outcome these "libertarians" would like to see happening, will be a larger infringement on our rights then these isolated incidents.

I witnessed something similar last week, except the injection was insulin. It didn’t even push gently on my rights.

Reason has now provided its online readership another chance to embarrass itself by allowing some of the disgusting assholes here a chance to, once again, praise the death of a cop who was enforcing the law, no matter how wrong that particular law may or may not be.

As well as a forum for those who don’t care how many innocent people get killed because cops were enforcing the law, no matter how wrong that particular law may or may not be.

J sub D | May 19, 2008, 2:48pm | #

Hey B -

The thread isn't that long, the comment lauding Jerrod Shivers' death? Oh, the isn't one, is there?

robin | May 19, 2008, 2:48pm | #

The problem with this case is that he shot through the door. You just can't do that and expect that you won't be in a position of claiming one set of facts while the guys on the other side of the door claim another.

Shoot AFTER you identify your target.

Matt Moore | May 19, 2008, 2:59pm | #

B - Please find me one comment that thinks the cop got what he deserved. The cop is also a victim of a broken system in this case.

Jonathan Hohensee | May 19, 2008, 2:59pm | #

I should say that I was attempting to troll with my first comment.
Just fucking with you people

Taktix® | May 19, 2008, 3:08pm | #

I'm not surprised. Every person I've ever known who goes by "Steven" was an asshole...

Bramblyspam | May 19, 2008, 3:53pm | #

B:
Hahahahaah, hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe the above sentence.
And I have read past comments about this case, Mr. Mature. That is why I made the statement I did. Every article about this case has contained a substantial amount of comments praising this cops death, even prompting the author to castigate some of the commenters.
Perhaps you should open your fucking eyes and actually read what I said. I didn't say every comment, Adult-man.

I just did a site search on "Jarrod Shivers" and went through the first four hit & run threads on this case. (Yes, I have no life). I did not find a single post saying that the dead cop got what he deserved. I did find one post saying that the *shooter* got what *he* deserved. Needless to say, that post got roundly condemned.

I did find several posts saying that it's the cops' fault that one of their own died on this raid, but that's a far cry from saying that the dead guy deserved to die. I didn't find a single comment from *anyone* that "praised the cop's death". The worst anti-cop comment that I saw was someone saying he wasn't mourning it.

Methinks "B" has reading comprehension issues.

Bob Smith | May 19, 2008, 3:54pm | #


The idea of people openly shooting heroin in the street, the inevitable outcome these "libertarians" would like to see happening, will be a larger infringement on our rights then these isolated incidents.
How does somebody openly shooting heroin in the street infringe on your rights? Are you asserting a particular public aesthetic to be part of your "rights"? More to the point, I don't recall a time when people were publicly shooting heroin, even when it was legal. Heroin addicts were social pariahs, as they should be, despite the legality of the substance. There's a reason for the phrase "drug den", you know.

J sub D | May 19, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Ryan Frederick's preliminary hearing on first degree murder is less than two weeks away.

A quality judge would reduce bail to $500 and have some probing questions for the prosecution. I don't expect that to happen though. I'm just saying that's what a honorable judge would do.

Brian Courts | May 19, 2008, 4:09pm | #

This has got to be some of the worst police work I've ever seen

I wish it was some of the worst, but sadly it looks pretty typical to me.

Matt Moore | May 19, 2008, 5:30pm | #

B - There's also a moral flaw in your argument that we shouldn't discuss something because someone might say some something reprehensible on the subject. By that rule we shouldn't discuss the Holocaust because somebody might pop in and say that the Jews got what they deserved. Even though we all disagree with that asshole it someone makes us look bad? Bad enough that we should limit our speech on the subject?

In this case, you think that we should stop discussing the case of a man wrongfully imprisoned on the off chance that a few mouth-breathing cop-killer-wannabes might show up and spout off, thereby tarnishing the image of libertarians. That's ridiculous (if only because no one becomes a libertarian so that they'll seem respectable).

If there were 10 people wrongfully imprisoned, would that be enough to go out on a limb for? How about 100 or 1000 or half a million?

CitizenNothing | May 19, 2008, 6:39pm | #

The problem with this case is that he shot through the door. You just can't do that and expect that you won't be in a position of claiming one set of facts while the guys on the other side of the door claim another.

Shoot AFTER you identify your target.
Ordinarily I would aggree that you should identify (visually) what you're about to shoot, but in this case I'd do the same thing. If someone is kicking in my door it's pretty safe to guess they mean you harm. The only thing I'd do differently is use a 12ga.

Paul | May 19, 2008, 6:47pm | #

It's increasingly looking like Ryan Frederick is not only innocent, but that he has a compelling civil rights suit against the city of Chesapeake and its police department.
Good luck with that.

Ordinarily I would aggree that you should identify (visually) what you're about to shoot,

I'm in my home and a loud bang occurs, and in comes a large, armed figure in dark clothing. Visual Identification: threat.

Response: Start shooting.

Once an adult* has made himself known on my property under circumstances which any reasonable person would agree are threatening, it is not my job plumb the boundaries of their intentions.

I have a simple rule at my house. If I catch your ass in my home in the middle of the night, I'll give you one short verbal warning**. Immediately after that, if you don't immediately drop all tools/weapons/handheld devices and prostrate yourself on the floor, spread eagle, you are a threat to me.

*any figure larger than a toddler.

**this verbal warning is subject to change and even elimination if threatening person is moving towards me in a rapid fashion. We are not liable for loss of life and/or property in the case of home invasion.

BobDobbs | May 19, 2008, 7:23pm | #

B; I think that these police officers are the moral equivalent of Germans who enforced the holocaust. You talk about “enforcing the law, no matter how wrong that particular law may or may not be.” That excuse was used during the Nuremburg trials and rejected. Do you shed tears for those evil men who were executed after WWII, I don’t. This officer reaped what he had sown.

Brian Courts | May 19, 2008, 7:34pm | #

If I catch your ass in my home in the middle of the night, I'll give you one short verbal warning

That calls to mind perhaps my favorite verbal warning. In A Tale of Two Cities a rider is heard approaching the mail coach at night in a dense mist. The guard, "keeping an eye and a hand on the arm-chest before him, where a loaded blunderbuss lay at the top of six or eight loaded horse-pistols" is obviously wary in this era of constant danger from highwaymen:
"Keep where you are," the guard called to the voice in the mist, "because, if I should make a mistake, it could never be set right in your lifetime.

Paul | May 19, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Brian,

That just became my favorite verbal warning.

The Johnny Appleseed of Crack | May 19, 2008, 7:57pm | #

Regardles of whether or not Jarrod Shivers deserved to die, he is definitely morally blameworthy. Since any search of a person's house is necessarily intrusive, search warrants should not be granted based on such flimsy evidence as was the case with the warrant on Ryan Frederick's house. Any cop that obtains and executes a search warrant with little or no evidence to support it is morally blameworthy. It is also morally blameworthy to execute a search warrant in a violent manner without good reason.

Jhe | May 20, 2008, 7:43am | #

Bring back the GRAND JURY
and bring back the ROPE

It's time to start filing criminal charges against ANY and ALL of our EMPLOYEES that abuse their office or renege on their oath to uphold the supreme law of the land.
The charge is "Official Opression"
the vehicle is a charge in criminal court
the tool is the Grand Jury

www.jurisimprudence.com
www.ruleoflawradio.com

Official corruption is treason, and the penalty for treason is clearly spelled out.

LarryA | May 20, 2008, 9:35am | #

"Keep where you are," the guard called to the voice in the mist, "because, if I should make a mistake, it could never be set right in your lifetime.

Reminds me of a sign I used to see near where I live. "No trespassing. Survivors will be prosecuted."

sabboth | May 25, 2008, 1:51pm | #

I'm not sure how the laws in Virginia are, but most states have a law something to the effect of, if a death occurs during a false police call (raid, etc.), the lying caller can be tried for murder. Since it would not have happened otherwise.

And I DO believe the police need to be more thorough. There's been way too many bad outcomes from police not following up or paying close enough attention (ie: getting the wrong address). I vaguely remember several years ago, an old lady having a heart attack when the police busted into the wrong address and scared her to death.

Douglas A. Willinger | May 31, 2008, 9:08pm | #

If we let understandable mistakes deter us from our crusade against the evil that is drugs, the terrorists will win.
Amen.
The idea of people openly shooting heroin in the street, the inevitable outcome these "libertarians" would like to see happening, will be a larger infringement on our rights then these isolated incidents.

-----

This against a substance as safe as Marijuana, in a society that is ok with legal alcohol which at least was legally outlawed with a constitutional amendment, and in a commonwealth that gave this planet the blight of the Virginia Bright Leaf poison that takes 400,000+ lives annually in the US and 6 million @ in India and China!!!

No wonder that the pushers of the pharmacratic inquisition are so found of the word "dope" which really refers not to any substance, but rather the deceived.