Attorney: Police misled magistrate to get search warrant

well written, I agree with your point.

at both sides, is exactly what I've done. Regardless of how nice a guy Ryan may or may not be, he still broke laws long on the books. He still shot, twice, a man who died from the wounds caused by those shots. It wouldn't matter if Mr. Shivers had been a civilian instead of an leo. A man is dead because Ryan consciously chose do open fire. He needs to accept responsibility for his actions. So should his supporters. His operation violated the law. His actions later took the life of another. He should be punished for both. His "character", outside of this situation, may be considered at the time of sentencing.

Interesting, that after the Police Chief issues his missive about how this could not happen, the City Manager is getting ready to announce a reorganization in the PD? That can only mean that the Chief is leaving, otherwise the Chief would be making the changes. Makes me believe that there must be a lot more truth to Mr. Hopkins story than Chesapeake would like us to ever know. Maybe "The Shield" is not that farfetched afterall.

You sir, are wrong. The only time distribution of marijuana is a felony is if it is more than 1/2 oz. There are 2 separate levels of that felony: PWID 1/2 oz. but less than 5 lbs. and also PWID more than 5 lbs. You can have misdemeanor PWID but that it all comes down to what can be proven. I can have 1/2 oz. of weed in my house and if the police raid me but find no other items indicative of distribution I can be charged with PWID but I can guarantee my lawyer will get it knocked down to simple possession. What indications of distribution were present in Ryan's home? Scales? Baggies with the corners cut off? Paperwork indicating who owed him and how much, commonly referred to as "ledgers?" I'm not taking up for the guy, I'm going to let it play out in court and let the legal system work. However, I can't stand to sit back and watch people spout off misinformation because they think they know something based on how much Law & Order or CSI they watch each week.

You said it, "Who knows?" I am not trying to Monday morning quarterback this issue. With that said to truly understand the issue you must look at both sides.

Do & Price. Ryan engaged in criminal behavior to the degree it came to the attention of the police. He may have been arrested at a later date. A raid may have been conducted at a time when a larger amount of drugs were present. Who knows? I find it ironic, that some who wanted Mike Vick locked up forever, are so concerned about a drug dealing killer's need to be shown compassion.

If we could only turn back the clock. Ryan would be at home with a little less cash after his lawyer fees and fines. Det. Shivers would be with his family.

Price, you are correct that he would disqualify himself for a CHP if he answered #8 truthfully. I should have been more clear by writing that he could have passed the background check for a CHP. The point being he had no disqualifying criminal record. In any case, as a non-felon he had the right to have a firearm.

Lawrence, please read more carefully. The prosecutor did not say it was lucrative, he said it was significant (whatever that means) if NOT lucrative, essentially an admission that he was NOT dealing.

Frederick is at worst, a time warped hippie, and in no way a dangerous drug dealing gangster for whom such a raid might have been justified. The warrant could have been served peaceably, they could have written him a ticket, and everyone would have gone home to their families. The only reason anyone died was the disproportionate use of paramilitary methods when safer means were available.

I see your point, but after reading the Va. State police CW rules I think Fredrick might have been disquailfied under #8.

8. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance? The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

Maybe not though since he had no arrest or test, but if he answered "no" to unlawful user then he would have lied on the form, correct? Really as of right now it really doesn't matter for him. #8 is a little bit confusing.

Mr. Frederick was in violation of Va. law. I went on numerous no-knock warrant raids. Most of the time, the quantity of illegal drugs, as described in the warrant, were accurate. Every blue moon, the amount was less than described. Most of the times this was the case, the dealer had just made delivery,(either by pick- up at his home base, or self delivery to a meet point), of large quantities of said illegal drugs. However, we could assess the true size of an operation by the evidence within the home or business used as the dealers base. It's a known fact that use of marijuana causes some to be overly paranoid. Perhaps this is the case with Frederick. Regardless, he is a criminal, by state definition, even if he hadn't fired a weapon at all. As the saying goes," don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

If his growing operation was lucrative then that means he was making money from it and that sir is distribution, a felony in Virginia. Your logic is really interesing.

Frederick had, prior to the raid, no criminal record of any kind. He had no arrests or convictions for any felony or misdemeanor, and had never been arrested.

He could have applied for a Concealed Handgun Permit and been approved.

Further, even the prosecutor now describes the alleged marijuana growing operation as 'significant if not lucrative' indicating that he knows full well that Frederick was at most growing pot for his own use and not for sale.

It might have been a good idea to have determined that before attacking his home like it was the fortified center of a major drug gang.

Fredericks gun ownership could be restricted by a number of things even a misdemeanor conviction of Domestic Assault or being subject to a protective order would eliminate a person from legal gun ownership. Of course we all know that a person that manufactures marijuana obviously could care less about any laws so his ligal ownership is really not significant in this incident.A lot has been said about the amount of marijuana that was found, and under Virginia State Law distribution of 14 grams or more, of Marijuana is a felony. That equates to one half ounce. Also mature plants that are seized are usually valued at a thousand dollars each. Twenty five plants would have been a substantial haul for an indoor grow operation in a residential setting, also it would be easy for Frederick to get rid of them if he had been alerted to his being discovered by police.

I asked about the legality of Frederick's gun possession because of his drug activity. Many drug users have had an arrest. If 1 has a drug arrest & conviction, 1 is disqualified, under federal law, for gun ownership. Under federal law, 1 with a dishonorable discharge, is disqualified for gun ownership. 1 is most definitely required to identify a threat before using deadly force.

I respectfully disagree, but Fredrick was not a legal gun owner. Just because he was not a felon.

There is no requirement in Virginia for a non-felon to have a license or registration to own a gun. A Concealed handgun permit is required to carry a handgun concealed, but open carry does not require a permit.

Frederick, like every other Virginia not previously convicted of a felony, has the right to keep and bear arms, and to defend his life and home.

The burden for the prosecution in this case will be to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Frederick knew he was firing on a policeman and not an intruder intending him harm.

I'm unable to recall; did any of the columns on this case mention whether Frederick's gun possession was legal? Ryan Frederick engaged in criminal activity prior to the police raid. 1, is absolutely required, to identify the perceived threat, before using deadly force for self-defence. This is to prevent utter chaos on our streets. Some would shoot almost anyone they thought looked, to them, in the slightest probability, as a threat.

Doc,

I did not read the part about the other Det's statements. I went back in the archives and after reading your post I have to agree if Fredrick did shoot at chest level the shots should have gone over Det. Shivers head.
Here is another thought to ponder, Fredrick stated, I witnessed the lower panels busted out. The officer is reaching through the door to grab the ram. Fredrick is actually aiming at him and misses. Then in theory if Det. Shivers was at the base of the steps he could have been shot (I do not know where Det. Shivers was hit). Is that theory possible, he aimed and missed his intended target. Do I think Fredrick personally targeted Det. Shivers, probably not.

"As for identify his target, I do not know where Det. Shivers was standing outside the house or if he was the officer breaking the panels in the door."

According to Det. Robert's testimony at the preliminary hearing, Det. Shivers was in a covering position near be base of the three steps up to the porch. Another officer was breaching the door and the ram missed the solid frame of the door and went through the lower panels. That officer was reaching in trying to retrieve the ram when the 2 shots were fired.

Had the shots been fired at chest level for Frederick, they would have passed over Shivers head, so the only way he could have been struck was if Frederick was firing down at the arm reaching through the door.

Frederick could not have seen Shivers and missed the officer reaching through the door. Shivers being mortally hit was a freak accident.

Anybody that owns a firearm, whether for personal protection or for sport, could be in the same situation as Ryan. Don't give up or discount your constitutional rights just because the police or some other legal authority is involved. The next time something like this happens it could be you who pulled the trigger, and I know that you would want the full benefit of the due process of law. In particular, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Doc,

I think you should have said, "Firearms safety rules", not hunting safety rules. I think that would encompass all use of firearms.

As for identify his target, I do not know where Det. Shivers was standing outside the house or if he was the officer breaking the panels in the door. I will spare all of us the comments, about what if it was a salesman, etc, at the door.

I agree with you Doc, what would a reasonable citizen do at the point in time. However, most reasonable citizens do not have a marijuana grow operation in their garage. Most citizens would report a burglary of their house. I would still like to know when he purchased the firearm, I know right now it does not mean much now. I personally have no proof that Fredrick did have a marijuana grow operation in his garage, but if he did does he burden any responsbility for bringing that life style upon himself. If the police did leave out the burglar

then they should get double the punishment.

Man's house get's burglerized...man is paranoid, probably can't sleep, in terriable fear....man comes through front door....man shoots... am I missing something?
On a serious note....My heart goes out to the man that signed up for such a tough job that pays little. And too his family...wow, may only God's Best be with you!!! My thoughts and prayers go out to you and my best most sincere wishes.
There is really no need to over complicate this.... the officer was asked to do something that he should not have been asked to do....it was a debacle from start to finish....and the young man was doing something illegal. Let it go!!!

and throw away the key.

Reason.com, "isolated incident"
Search it and learn.
May God forgive us.

I have read many of your comments and many of you assume much.
First, you assumed the police knew the informant broke in. One of you even wrote, "Of course they knew." Why so certain? Is it because so many of you just want so badly to believe a conspiracy? I think so. In reality, the informant had more motive to lie than the police did.
Second, you assume the police were lying about knocking and yelling "Police!" Why? Do you really think the police want to break into a house and risk bodily harm to themselves? Every day they risk their lives to "SERVE AND PROTECT." The last resort is to go internal on an unknown home. They do all of this and still face your unwarranted criticisms and verbal abuse. And they will still keep working for YOU.
Third, let's not forget this guy was a drug dealer growing pot in his garage. I have read so much sympathy for the guy who probably wanted to sell drugs to your kids. He is the

Yes.

You need to be impeached! You don't have all of the facts...no one here does! I certainly hope the husbands of your membership are never subjected to speculation by the media and blogosphere and then automatically condemned by you! If you really are a cop's wife, you should be ashamed of yourself! The actual facts will come out in court and just as bits and pieces can be placed together now to paint the CPD in bad light, there may well be additional bits revealed that are just as logical, the word the good Doc likes to use, to exonerate them from this cloud of corruption.

Apparently some people are confusing the rules of safe hunting(positively identify your target) with the law on self defense. If shooting through a door is necessary to protect your life, there is no prohibition against doing so.

However, Frederick did not shoot blindly through the door. He fired at an unidentified person who had broken the bottom panels out of his door and who was reaching in through the door. How do I know? If he had fired blindly through the door instead of down through the broken out panels, the shot would have passed about 2 feet over Det. Shivers head.

So, the question really is, 'Is it justified to assume that an unidentified person who has kicked out the bottom of your door and is either trying to come through or reach the door knob to get in, intends to do you serious harm?' If a reasonable person would answer yes, the shooting is justified.

Tallahassee got to the truth when an informant was killed and they released the results of the investigations along with the pitifully shameful punishments that were doled out. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/2020/Story?id=5886704&page=1 It is such a shame that the city of Chesapeake is not doing the same, however it was a policeman killed and not an informant, and a citizen is loosing his liberty because of lax procedures, inept investigations and malicious prosecution. Check out the article and see if Tallahassee isn't more of a city than Chespeake!