Gangsters in Blue

Ten years.

In this passage of John Wilburn’s summary of Paul Ebert’s closing, Ebert is recalling the testimony of an alleged marijuana expert. Ebert’s trying to make the case that Frederick is a big-time pot dealer.

Meinhart says 1 plant produces 1 pound of salable marijuana. 1 pound is 16 ounces, and at $400.00 per ounce is $6400.00 times 10 plants is $64000.00.

Which of course would explain why Ryan Frederick got up at 4am each morning to deliver soft drinks.

Virginian-Pilot columnist Kerry Dougherty (who has thus far proven to be a reliable (if not always accurate) defender of the Chesapeake Police Department) today outdoes herself, cracking jokes fat jokes because Ryan Frederick has gained 60 pounds while isolated in jail for the past year:

What’s cooking at the Chesapeake city jail?

Spectators couldn’t help but wonder about that last week as they gawked at Ryan Frederick during his capital murder trial.

I mean, how often does an inmate pack on about 60 pounds behind bars?

Comparing photos of the skinny soft-drink delivery guy who was arrested a year ago to the chipmunk-cheeked defendant in the too-small suit was a lot like looking at before-and-after photos from a Jenny Craig ad.

Ha! A dead cop, crappy police work, prosecutorial misconduct, and a likely innocent man putting on weight because he’s been confined to a small jail cell for more than a year while waiting to see if he’ll be spending the rest of his life in prison–that’s comedy gold!

There is apparently a point behind Dougherty’s fat jokes, though it’s a pretty ridiculous one.

On Thursday, prosecutors tried to focus attention on Frederick’s weight, hinting that the beefy 29-year-old might have kept thin in the past by abusing drugs that cause weight loss. The prosecution posed hypothetical questions to an expert witness about whether cessation of methamphetamines or cocaine might result in rapid weight gain.

You know what else could cause weight gain? Spending 23 hours per day in 9 by 12 foot cell–for more than a year.

Dougherty’s next sentence assumes her readers are absolute idiots:

He said his overeating is stress-related, yet conceded that stress on the night of the shooting caused him to vomit several times.

Yes, that’s quite the contradiction, Ms. Dougherty. Clearly, Frederick isn’t lying about gaining weight. And as we saw and heard in yesterday’s videos, he isn’t lying about vomiting during his police interrogations on the night of the raid. So I guess Dougherty’s implication here is that Frederick is lying about why he gained wait–that he wasn’t stressed about spending the rest of life in prison or remorse for ending Shivers’ life. Rather, he was just feasting on vending machine food in celebration and satisfaction at his kill. Oh, and he can’t help but himself now that his appetite is no longer suppressed by all the cocaine and/or meth he was taking (an accusation for which there is zero evidence, other than the preposterous link to Frederick’s weight gain).

I hate to waste words explaining the obvious, but Dougherty apparently requires it. We react differently to different stressors. It’s not at all difficult to see how the immediate stress and adrenalin rush that would come with having just having your home raided and realizing you’d just killed a cop might cause one to vomit while, later, the stress and monotony of wasting away in a jail cell for a year while awaiting your fate might cause one to seek comfort in food that tastes good.

I actually hadn’t read about this line of questioning from the prosecution in the trial coverage, but it’s typically galling and outrageous.

“You’re not exactly wasting away from regret and remorse now, are you?” snapped prosecutor James Willett, who then flashed an image of skinny Frederick in an orange jumpsuit on a screen. With the thin Frederick towering over the chubby one, Willett told Frederick to rise, open his jacket and turn sideways.

It’s not enough that they’re trying to railroad the guy, they have to embarrass and insult him, too.

I guess if there’s an upside to this insanity, it’s that if the law-and-order crowd has nothing left but fat jokes, they must be starting to realize just how shabby the state’s case against Frederick really is.

Here’s hoping the jury does, too.

Shouldn’t a prosecutor required to do even a bare bones investigation into the reliability of his witnesses?

More from Chesapeake this afternoon:

Jailhouse informant Jamal Skeeter’s credibility took more hits at the Ryan Frederick murder trial this morning, as a defense attorney introduced about 30 letters Skeeter wrote to various authorities offering his assistance in homicides, police shootings and even the Michael Vick dogfighting investigation.

Called back to the witness stand, Skeeter didn’t deny that he’s a “professional witness.” But he denied writing some of the letters, even though acknowledging they were in his handwriting with his name on the envelope…

When Skeeter entered the courtroom, he initially refused to answer any questions, saying his safety was in jeopardy. He also tried to order the removal of the media. The judge refused and ordered him to testify.

Over the weekend, I’ll put up a more thorough review of the last few days in the trial of Ryan Frederick, the Chesapeake, Virginia man charged with capital murder for shooting a police officer during a botched drug raid.

But here’s one item of note: Earlier this week, we heard the unlikely testimony of Steven Wright, the police informant in the case. Wright gave damning statements about buying marijuana from Frederick dozens of times over about a six month period, and state that Frederick threatened to kill both him in his family. Wright also admitted to both illegally breaking into Frederick’s home three days before the raid (to collect probable cause for the search warrant), and to lying to the police about said break-in for months. His testimony was not only harmful to Frederick, it helped assuage allegations that Chesapeake police officers were sending informants to break into private homes in order to look for evidence for search warrants.

Wright has been in jail since last October on several charges stemming from his theft and use of credit cards, including a charge of grand larceny. He was supposed to appear in court last December on those charges, but that appearance was delayed, rather conveniently, until two days after his testimony in Frederick’s trial.

Yesterday, Wright was released on bond. He still hasn’t been charged for breaking in to Frederick’s home, nor has he been charged for obstructing the investigation of Frederick and the raid by allegedly lying to police about the break-in for months.

Big development in the Ryan Frederick trial today.

This morning, Frederick’s attorney, James Broccoletti, requested and was granted a recess after three attorneys contacted him last night with concerns about state’s witness Jamal Skeeter, a jailhouse snitch who testified on Tuesday.

According to local TV station WVEC, one of the attorneys was actually another prosecutor, Portsmouth Commonwealth’s Attorney Earle Mobley.

Broccoletti said Mobley told him Skeeter is well-known to prosecutors for giving false testimony and is considered a “professional witness.”

Ebert apparently told the court, “he did not realize Skeeter had questionable credibility.”

His long felony record and wholly implausible testimony didn’t give it away?

MORE: From the Virginian-Pilot:

A spokesman for Mobley said this morning that Portsmouth prosecutors had used Skeeter as a witness but stopped. The spokesman, Bill Prince, could not immediately identify what cases Skeeter testified in.

“We didn’t find him to be trustworthy. We felt an obligation to turn that over to the Chesapeake people,” Prince said this morning. “We got to the point where we wouldn’t use him anymore.”

To sit on such information, he said, would be “offensive.”

Mobley’s office also sent a letter last year to the Norfolk commonwealth’s attorney upon learning that Skeeter was scheduled to testify against a homicide suspect.

Norfolk did not use Skeeter as a witness.

You don’t often hear about one state’s attorney undermining another’s case in the midst of a trial. Mobley deserves a ton of credit, here.

Informant and jailhouse snitch testimony dominated yesterday’s proceedings at the Ryan Frederick trial. 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 prior coverage of his trial here.  Virginian-Pilot coverage of yesterday’s events here.  Coverage from the local libertarian blog Tidewater Liberty here.

The star for most of yesterday was Steven Wright, the informant who tipped police off to Frederick, and who illegally broke into Frederick’s home three nights before before the raid to obtain probable cause.

A few observations, before I excerpt from the Virginian-Pilot’s coverage of his testimony:

• The Virginian-Pilot article doesn’t mention it, but Wright was arrested a few days prior to the raid on charges of credit card theft and fraud. Those charges were dropped shortly after the raid, then reinstated months later, when Wright was arrested again. He was due to stand trial last month. Conveniently, his trial date was moved to tomorrow, two days after his testimony against Frederick.

• Wright’s portrayal of Frederick as a vengeful killer with a gangsta’ vibe runs contrary to everything I’ve heard about Frederick from neighbors, coworkers, and friends and family.

• According to Wright and the police detectives the state has put on the stand, Wright not only illegally broke into Frederick’s home, he lied to police about it for months, possibly compromising not only a drug investigation, but an investigation into the killing of a police officer. Yet he’s never been charged—not for the break-in, nor for lying about it for months.

Here’s the Virginian-Pilot’s account of Wrights testimony:

Ryan Frederick threatened to kill police informant Steven Rene Wright after learning that Wright broke into his garage and stole five marijuana plants, Wright testified at Frederick’s murder trial Tuesday.

“I had a week to turn myself in to him or he was going to go after my family,” Wright said from the witness stand. “He said he was going to… kill me if I didn’t come.”

[...]

Wright said he and a friend, Renaldo Turnbull Jr., broke into Frederick’s garage on Jan. 14, 2008, and stole five of about 10 plants growing in a sophisticated hydroponic tent. They then went to another friend’s house where they made a cell phone video of the plants.

The plants were never turned over to police, he said, but Frederick learned Wright took them and called with the threats.

Wright said he met Frederick earlier in 2007 while dating the sister of Frederick’s fiancee.

In the six to eight months prior to the raid, Wright said, he’d been to Frederick’s house at 932 Redstart Ave. 30 to 50 times; he saw the marijuana growing operation at almost every visit; and he smoked the drug with Frederick and others. He said Frederick even explained to him how the hydroponic system produced superior cannabis.

Wright said he became a police informant after seeking help from a drug dealer in an unrelated case who threatened him. He said police paid him $60 for information that led to the arrest of that dealer.

Despite being limited by the judge to testifying about one or two marijuana sales between November 2007 and the night of the raid, Wright blurted out that he bought marijuana from Frederick some 20 to 30 times throughout 2007.

Wright insists he was never asked by Chesapeake police to break into Frederick’s home. Rather, he said he did so voluntarily as part of a scheme he planned with several friends. They’d steal half the plants, then leave the other half for the police to find after Wright tipped them off. The problem for the prosecution, here, is that in order to believe Wright’s testimony, they’ll also have to accept his own testimony that he’s a habitual liar who routinely spins out falsehoods when it’s in his interest.

The state then called Jamal Skeeter, a jailhouse snitch with a long felony record.  From the Tidewater Liberty blog:

Mr. Skeeter said that he had been in the Chesapeake jail for a period of about 10 days in June of 2008. He had been brought here from the Correctional facility at Lawrenceville, where he was serving a 14 year sentence. He was here to testify as a witness in another case.

He wore red coveralls, indicating that he is in solitary confinement. (Mr. Frederick has been in solitary confinement throughout his entire stay at the jail). He said that in June he was in the gym (on his one hour daily “break”) when “someone” pointed Mr. Frederick out (thru a glass door) as “the guy who shot a policeman.” Mr. Skeeter somehow arranged to speak to Mr. Frederick (through a glass door) and that Mr. Frederick immediately “broke out in a story” saying that he knew he was shooting a cop, but that he was trying to get off on self-defense.

[...]

He said Mr. Frederick told him that he was high when the police got to his house, and that he had hollow points in his gun. When asked about Mr. Frederick’s demeanor, Mr. Skeeter said he “was trying to be a gangsta” and didn’t seem sorry for what he had done.

[...]

Mr. Skeeter claimed that he has made no deal with anyone, and that he’s doing this (testifying against Mr. Frederick) for Det Shivers family because “it ain’t right.”

To sum, the career felon Mr. Skeeter took interest in Frederick after “someone” told him Frederick shot a cop. In their first conversation, through a glass door, during an hour-long break in the jail’s gym, Frederick apparently confessed everything to Mr. Skeeter.  Skeeter, the felon, then contacted prosecutors, not to get time off his own sentence, but because of the overwhelming sense of empathy he felt for the dead cop’s family, and because Frederick’s confession violated his own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sure.  Sounds plausible.

The state then called jailhouse informant Lamont Malone, who is serving time for seven different felonies.  Malone has already testified once against someone else, resulting in a reduction in his sentence from life to about 19 years.

Again from Tidewater Liberty:

He said he is currently in the Chesapeake jail (he has also been in Suffolk and Portsmouth), and has “gotten to know” Mr. Frederick. He said Mr. Frederick’s jailhouse nickname is “Calvin.” He said that Mr. Frederick calls his gun “Roscoe” and that Mr. Frederick shot the police after they kicked in his door because he “panicked” and “had to get rid of his product.” He said that Mr. Frederick told him that he grew “Hydro” and that he had to get rid of his plants. He didn’t say how he did this.

He said that Mr. Frederick told him that he wanted to keep his case in Chesapeake because of the support, and that he expects that his lawyer is going to get him off.. He said that Mr. Frederick has expressed no remorse.

[...]

He said that Mr. Frederick makes unkind comments about Mrs. Shivers, and that he doesn’t seem sorry for what he did. He said that Mr. Frederick has been “laughing it up” with another prisoner, who is facing similar charges.

Laying it on thick, aren’t they?

When weighing yesterday’s testimony against Frederick’s story, it’s probably useful to remember that Frederick had no prior criminal record, and had a full-time job that required him to get up early in the morning (with kind words from his employers). Friends and neighbors described him to me last year as a shy, introverted guy who smoked pot recreationally.

It’ll be interesting to see if Renaldo Turnbull gets called to testify, and what his testimony might look like if he does.

Ryan 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). Prior coverage of his trial here.

(Note: My analysis of the trial is based on coverage by the Virginian-Pilot and by local blogger Don Tabor.)

On Friday, the jury heard more testimony police officers who were on the raid. It’s notable that the testimony from the various officers varied about which and how many announcements individual officers heard. One officer who was with the second raid team that hit Frederick’s garage, for example, says he only heard one announcement, from a female officer. This, even though he was outside with the other raid team, only a short distance away. Frederick, meanwhile, was sleeping, separated from the officers by walls, and distracted by barking dogs and likely his own paranoia from having just been burglarized.

The second raid team was also slowed down by a fence, and entered the garage after the other team began taking down Frederick’s door.  That means the garage raid team’s announcements wouldn’t have been a factor in determining whether or no Frederick should have known the people invading his home were police.

One thing I neglected to mention from Thursday’s proceedings that’s worth rehashing: Just as they did at a preliminary hearing last March, the police again said they moved to break into Frederick’s home after one officer peered through a window and saw a moving human figure. If the purpose of the knock-and-announce requirement is to give the home’s occupant time to answer the door and avoid a violent confrontation, a figure moving toward the door shouldn’t be a reason to commence with the battering ram. Doing so renders moot the whole point of knock-and-announce. If the cops see you move to answer the door, they invade because you’ve blown their cover.  Of course if you don’t answer the door, they’ll also be taking down your door.

The other two notable items from Friday involved more shenanigans from the prosecution. During opening statements, prosecutor James Willett told the jury Frederick was “stoned out of his mind,” and “in a blind rage” when he shot Det. Jarrod Shivers the night of the raid.

During his own opening, Frederick attorney James Broccoletti showed video of an interview with CPD Det. Edward Winkelspecht, who said Frederick didn’t appear high after his arrest. Despite the fact that his name was on the prosecution’s witness list, when Broccoletti said in court Friday that he’d like to hear from Det. Winkelspecht, the Virginian-Pilot reports,

“…prosecutors told Judge Marjorie T. Arrington that the officer was unavailable to testify because he was in Georgia for training and was expected to be there for weeks, if not months.”

Seems odd that the prosecution wouldn’t have ensured that such an important witness would be around for questioning—or, if you’re sufficiently cynical, it isn’t odd at all.

At Broccoletti’s request, the judge compelled the officer to come back. Det. Winkelspecht then testified today that Frederick was coherent and responsive the night of the raid, that his eyes weren’t bloodshot, and that he had no concerns about Frederick not understanding or comprehending his rights. The police also apparently either didn’t give Frederick a drug test, or they did and the results either weren’t positive or weren’t conclusive.

All of which means Willett had zero evidence for the “stoned out of his mind” and “blind rage” description of Frederick he made to jurors in his opening statement. I’m not sure what Broccoletti can do about that, other than to remind the jury during his closing, and to take note of it all for the appeal should Frederick be convicted

The other major detail from Friday involves a videotaped reenactment of the raid conducted by police and prosecutors that the state has fought vigorously to keep the defense from seeing. From Tabor’s report:

Though the video was the product of a search warrant, the prosecution has maintained it was an internal ‘work product’ of the prosecution crafted to help them develop their theory of the case and not subject to discovery by the defense. They admitted that the defense was entitled to any measurements, drawings, photos or graphs resulting from the search, but not the video. But they also claimed they made no measurements, photos or drawings, only the video.

The problem is that the prosecution then entered a still from the video into evidence, which one of Frederick’s attorneys noticed included a string used to measure the trajectory of the fatal bullet. That’s pretty clearly a measurement, which means the prosecution wasn’t telling the truth about what’s in the video, and hasn’t given the defense all of the evidence it’s required to turn over. The judge ruled that the defense be allowed to view the video, and ordered the prosecution to look again to be sure it wasn’t holding any evidence that could be relevant to Frederick’s lawyers.

According to the Virginian-Pilot, the police also revealed today what they found in Frederick’s home—lights, tubing, and some books about growing marijuana. None of those things are illegal, though they do indicate—as Broccoletti conceded in his opening statement—that Frederick was likely growing marijuana. Broccoletti told the jury Frederick grew solely for his own use, and so far the prosecution has provided no evidence of selling or distribution. The police found no plants in the house or garage on the night of the raid, but did find misdemeanor amount of dried marijuana. Still, it looks like this will all boil down to whether this jury can look at the holes in the state’s case long enough to get beyond “growing pot + shot a cop.”

The jury was supposed to view Frederick’s home this afternoon (over the objections of the prosecution), but that visit was cancelled. The reports I’ve seen don’t say why.

Ryan 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?