The first breach of the trust we place in law enforcement stems from the initial Warrant.
The Warrant to search Frederick’s home and garage were based on the affidavit of a Confidential Informant. It is a fact of life that law enforcement would be less effective without the use of confidential informants, and a sad fact that confidential informants are seldom Eagle Scouts. Still, police should be on guard when making deals with criminals.
In this case, the informant claimed to have seen marijuana growing in indoor hydroponics equipment in the garage and a scale and bags in the house. Just prior to that affidavit, Frederick claims his home and garage were burglarized. His claim is supported by records of purchase of repair materials and new locks.
The questions raised are: Was the burglar the informant? If so, was this a random crime or was he sent there based on suspicions that did not rise to the level of probable cause?
If the informant were anyone but the burglar, such as a guest in his home in that time period, Frederick would be able to identify him. Having provided disastrously incorrect information leading to the death of a police officer, the value of this informant is so diminished that there is little reason to continue to shield his identity and indeed, it will almost certainly be necessary for him to testify sooner or later.
So, what other reason is their to not bring him forward unless there was wrongdoing in the obtaining of the warrant? If the informant was simply a burglar and reported his discovery to the police, that might be acceptable. But Frederick’s home is hardly a high value target for a burglar. The question must be asked whether this was simply a poor choice of a home to burglarize or if the informant was sent there on an unlawful reconnaissance?
It may well be, and indeed it is likely, that the supervisor who obtained the warrant acted in good faith, but with so many of the facts in this case being held back and delayed in their release, the suspicion that the intent of the Fourth Amendment was evaded will remain until a full and unedited accounting of the details of the case is provided to the public, along with supporting testimony.
There may be nothing more here than an incredible misjudgment by the CPD leadership of the importance of transparency and timeliness in informing the public if their trust is to be maintained, but so long as information his held hostage till dragged out by events, there will be suspicion and a breakdown of communication in both directions.