Confidential and Dangerous: The Andrew Sadek Case

In southeastern North Dakota, farmland stretches for miles while the Red River marks the borders between two states. Towns like Wahpeton are known for tight-knit communities and college campuses filled with young people starting their futures. But sometimes the places that feel safest are the ones least prepared for what happens when things go terribly wrong. It doesn't start with a hardened criminal or a violent lifestyle, but a 20-year-old college student who was quiet, nerdy, and a farm boy who liked bowling, fishing, and helping his parents raise cattle. A boy who vanished from his college dorm in the middle of the night. But this wasn't just a missing student, and what happened to him has never been fully explained. Over the years, his family has fought to search for answers that they've never been given. This is another story about confidential informants and what happens when young people are put into dangerous positions with no one to take responsibility after the worst happens. Andrew Sadek walked off campus on May 1st of 2014, and he never came back. My name's Ashley. And I'm Ricky. And this is Crime Salad. Andrew Sadek was born on November 22nd in 1993 in Valley City and raised just outside the small town of Rogers on his family's cattle farm in rural North Dakota. He knew wide open land, long winters, early mornings, and a lifestyle built on hard work and self-reliance. Andrew grew up helping raise the cattle, learning responsibility early and spending much of his time outdoors. His family described him as quiet and shy, a reserved kid who didn't draw much attention to himself. But he was also very smart, especially when it came to electronics. Andrew had a natural talent for technology. He always tinkered with devices, and he could understand systems in a way that came easily to him. And outside of that, he enjoyed hunting, fishing, working on hobby cars, and spending time on the farm. Andrew knew pain from an early age. In 2005, Andrew was just 11 years old. His brother was tragically killed in a grade crossing accident. This is basically when a train hits a car or vice versa. It was devastating for the family. Despite that trauma, Andrew, he kept moving forward, eventually graduating high school and setting his sights on college. so in 2012 he enrolled at north dakota state college of science in wapiton and for the first time people close to him noticed a change andrew began to come out of his shell and his mother later said that college seemed to help him grow more confident and outgoing he was doing well academically especially in technical coursework and appeared to find his footing despite this progression. By the spring of 2013, Andrew's life took a sharp and irreversible turn. In April of that year, Andrew Sadek was caught selling marijuana on campus. According to records, the largest transaction involved three grams of marijuana sold to a confidential informant. Two sales combined totaling roughly $80. What Andrew didn't know at the time was the person he was selling to wasn't just another student. The confidential informant was actively trying to work his way out of his own legal trouble. Just days earlier, he had been busted twice for selling marijuana himself. So each of Andrew's transactions were immediately reported back to local drug enforcement. Now, months later, in November of 2013, agents with the Southeast Multi-County agency, commonly referred to as SEMCA, raided Andrew's dorm room. And during the search, they found an orange plastic grinder with marijuana residue in it. And Andrew admitted that it belonged to him. The following day, Andrew was told to report to the law enforcement center in Wahpeton. And that's where things escalated. He was informed that because the marijuana sales took place in a school zone. He was facing two Class A felony charges. The potential penalty was up to 20 years in prison. Richland County Deputy James Weber presented Andrew with a choice. Cooperate with law enforcement as a confidential informant or face those felony charges with the possibility of up to 40 years in prison. It's your birthday today. Probably not what you want to be doing on your birthday, huh? I'll tell your roommate what you had going on. Alright, that's probably a good thing. Alright, all of you expressed interest that you probably want to help yourself out. Yeah. Okay, like I said, you're facing two felonies and then of course a misdemeanor charge from yesterday. Two felonies of deliveries since they took place on campus, both of them, they're enhanced, so they're class A felonies. 20 years in prison, $20,000 fined, and they're both. Okay, so potentially the max is 40 years in prison, $40,000 fine. You understand that? Yeah. Okay, obviously you're probably not going to get 40 years, but is it a good possibility that you're going to get some prison time? If you don't help yourself out, yeah, there is. Okay, that's probably not a way to start off your young adult life and career, right? So what I'm going to ask for you to do is to do some buys for me then. Where you'd have to wear a wire, you'd have to go buy marijuana from individuals, and then, you know, depend upon how you do and so forth, you know, a lot of this could go away. You know, are you, is it all going to go away? Probably not. Are you going to probably have to plead guilty to, like, maybe a misdemeanor's possession of marijuana? Probably, you know. But at least you're not pleading guilty to felonies. Okay, is that fair enough? Fair, yeah. Okay. Do you understand that you are not to divulge to any person except to the agent whom you are associated with your status as a confidential informant for the BCI and that you will not use your association with the BCI to resolve your personal problems? Now, with that is basically if you get jammed up in trouble with the police or anything, don't tell any law enforcement officers that you are associated with me, okay, at the time. Whatever you did, take your lumps and then you call me afterwards, okay, and then we'll work it out. Not that we don't trust cops, it's just you're not going to throw that card out there. On the second token is you can't tell anybody you're working for me for obvious reasons. Try not to tell your roommate anybody because the more people that know, if that word gets out, you know as well as I do, people are going to think you're a narc, and nobody's going to work with you. I mean, nobody will touch you. Of course, if you can't buy dope, you're not good to me. Okay, you understand that? I understand. Do you understand that you were to report to me who you're assigned to work with on a continuous basis? And if that sounds at all coercive to you, it's because sometimes it is. According to accounts of that meeting, Deputy Weber made it clear that prison time was a real possibility if Andrew didn't help himself out by becoming a CI. As a mom, watching this interview happen literally made me so mad. And obviously, I mean, this isn't the first time that we've seen a tactic like this. Obviously, we talked about in Rachel Hoffman's case, this is very similar. In this case also mirrors what happened to another young man, Matt Sanders, who recalled a nearly identical conversation with the same officer. Being told that cooperation was the only way to avoid severe prison time. Andrew was only 20 years old. He had no criminal history. And from that moment on, he was no longer just a college student, but a confidential informant working under the pressure of fear and the threat of extreme punishment. Over the next few months, Andrew would conduct three controlled drug buys under the direction of law enforcement. The first took place in November of 2013. Andrew was instructed to purchase one eighth of an ounce of marijuana for $60 from an individual identified by SEMCA. The transaction happened on campus at the college in a school zone. The second controlled buy involved the same individual and took place shortly afterward in December of 2013. Once again, Andrew purchased one-eighth of an ounce of marijuana for $60 in the same place on campus. And in January of 2014, Andrew conducted another controlled purchase, this time from a different suspect. The details were nearly identical to the first two. And by early 2014, Andrew had completed every controlled by he was instructed to do. On paper, he had cooperated, followed directions, and it looked like he was working his way out of his charges. By late April of 2014, there was nothing outwardly alarming about Andrew's life. On the weekend of April 25th, Andrew traveled back home to Rogers to visit his parents. It was a normal visit with him spending time at the family farm, talking with his mom. And when he headed back to campus later that night, he called her to let her know he was on his way. Everything seemed fine, and no one knew that this would be the last time Andrew ever spoke to his parents. Just a few days later, on the night of April 30th, Andrew went out with his roommate Drew Kugel and some friends of theirs. They spent the evening together, then they returned to their dorm room afterward. But when Drew woke up the next morning, Andrew was gone. At first, it didn't immediately raise alarms. Drew assumed Andrew might be with his girlfriend, you know, college students come and go. It just didn't feel unusual yet. But as the hours passed, Andrew still didn't return. By the next afternoon, with still no word from him, Drew reported Andrew missing to the campus police. And once that report was made, things escalated quickly. Campus security footage showed that Andrew had left the dorm building at around 2 a.m. on May 1st, wearing blue jeans, a black and red hooded Tampa Bay Buccaneers sweatshirt, blue and orange Nike shoes, and carrying a black backpack. His cell phone was with him, but it had been turned off, and no one else was seen leaving with him. So during the investigation into his disappearance, it became public for the first time that Andrew had been working as a confidential informant for Southeast Malte County Agency, a role he had taken on back in November of 2013 to avoid felony drug charges. But instead of treating Andrew as a missing 20-year-old college student who could be in danger, Semka immediately assumed something else, that he had run away to avoid doing more informant work. Based on that assumption, Andrew was formally charged with two felonies and arrest warrants were issued for him. And his parents, who are now fully aware of his informant role and terrified for their son's safety, publicly pleaded for Andrew to come home. They begged him to turn himself in, promising that they just wanted him safe. But Andrew never did. And with every day that passed, it became more and more clear that this wasn't just a young man who walked away from his life. By June of 2014, one question was echoing everywhere. Andrew's name was mentioned. If his life was going so well, why would he just walk away from it? Oh, please. Not that music. That music gives me nightmares from my childhood. Could we get something a little bit lighter, some lighter music here? Are you a fan of true crime TV shows? And what about Unsolved Mysteries, the show that jump-started all of our love of true crime? I'm Ellen Marsh. And I'm Joey Taranto. And we host I Think Not, a true crime comedy podcast covering some of the wildest stories from your favorite true crime campy TV shows all the way to Unsolved Mysteries. Baby, you will laugh. You will cry. You'll think about true crime in a whole new way. And you'll also ask yourself, who gave these people mics? New episodes of I Think Not are released every Wednesday with bonus episodes out every Thursday on Patreon. And every Monday, you can listen to our True Crime Rundown, where we go over the top true crime headlines of the week. So come and join us wherever you listen to your podcasts. Ah, the Regency era. You might know it as the time when Bridgerton takes place. Or as the time when Jane Austen wrote her books. The Regency era was also an explosive time of social change, sex scandals, and maybe the worst king in British history. Vulgar History's new season is all about the Regency era, the balls, the gowns, and all the scandal. Listen to Vulgar History Regency era wherever you get podcasts. The world of Sonic the Hedgehog has been thrust into a not-so-dark, not-so-stormy, hard-boiled detective story that probably nobody saw coming. Follow Sonic and the Intrepid Chaotix Detective Agency as they take on their biggest case yet. This high-flying, action-packed adventure will take them across the world, fighting for every clue they can find. It's one heck of a tale. Which is good, because this story might be the only thing that can save their lives. Well, if that's all, I can just dispose of you. Wait, what? All will be revealed in Sonic the Hedgehog presents the Chaotix Case Files. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts. Andrew's mother, Tammy Sadek, was clear from the very beginning that this didn't feel voluntary. She said Andrew had never taken off like this before, and from her perspective, something was wrong. She told reporters that it had been her gut feeling from the start. And Andrew's roommate said that he was completely baffled by Andrew's disappearance. The night before, a group of friends had gone out together and they returned back to the dorm. They watched a movie, one that Andrew picked out before eventually going to sleep. And when Drew woke up that morning, Andrew was gone. At first, like we said, it wasn't alarming. Drew thought that Andrew might have gone to see his girlfriend and that usually he would tell Drew where he was going and would even ask him to see if he wanted to go along with him. By Friday, May 2nd, friends began noticing something wasn't right. No one had seen Andrew since Wednesday night. He hadn't shown up to classes on Thursday. And that is when Drew and others reported him missing, prompting campus police to begin their investigation. He made it clear that Andrew wasn't naive. He was smart, resourceful, and someone who knew how to handle himself. And Tammy said that Andrew stayed in regular contact with his parents. He typically called home every Sunday. He came home for school breaks and holidays, and he was close with his parents. None of this was ordinary behavior, even as a confidential informant. And the only new person in Andrew's life was his girlfriend, who Andrew's mother described as the sweetest thing, and who had already been questioned extensively by police. At that point Tammy and her husband John said that they were in frequent communication with law enforcement and they were still holding on to hope North Dakota State College of Science President John Richman he issued a public statement calling it a deeply challenging time for the family and emphasizing that law enforcement was pursuing every possible lead. And the campus even organized a student circle of support for Andrew at the activity center. No one knew yet that this case was about to take a much darker turn. On June 27th of 2014, nearly two months after Andrew disappeared, the search for him came to a devastating end. That day, a dive team was conducting a training exercise in the Red River of the North near Breckenridge, which was just across the river from Wahpeton, when they discovered a body in the water. Authorities later confirmed through dental records that the remains belonged to Andrew Sadek. Wow, so sad. I can't even imagine what his parents were thinking, especially when that autopsy report came out. Yeah, right. And then by August of 2014, this is two months after Andrew's body was found in the river, investigators from North Dakota and Minnesota released the full autopsy report. The cause of death was confirmed as a small caliber gunshot wound to the head. But critically, the report stated that investigators could not determine whether the gunshot was self-inflicted. Multiple police diver searches of the river failed to recover any firearm. And that alone should have stopped any rush to judgment, especially since the report also revealed several details that immediately raised red flags. When Andrew Sadek's body was recovered, the black backpack he had been seen carrying in campus security footage was found filled with rocks. Right. And the Tampa Bay Buccaneers sweatshirt that Andrew was wearing when he left the dorm, it was also missing. Instead, his body was found wearing a jacket that did not appear to be in the security footage and one his family said did not belong to him. His wallet was also missing. But despite that uncertainty, the police at the North Dakota State College of Science campus, they moved quickly to rule Andrew's death a suicide. So imagine you're the parent in this situation. As you can imagine, Andrew's family, they strongly disagreed with that ruling. From the very beginning, they had maintained that Andrew did not leave on his own free will. And now, with a missing weapon, an unresolved manner of death, and the known risk tied to his role as a CI, that conclusion only raised more questions. So that same month, Tammy Sadek formally called on Wayne Stenagem, the North Dakota Attorney General at the time, to investigate Semka's handling of Andrew's role as a confidential informant. And in response, Stenagem convened a panel of three veteran law enforcement officers, two from North Dakota and one from South Dakota, to review the case. But of course, one of the loudest defenders of SEMCA was Scott Thorstesson, police chief and member of SEMCA's governing board. He publicly defended the agency's use of confidential informants, saying that these types of investigations are conducted the same way pretty much everywhere. They never did anything wrong that needed to be changed. Yeah, so by October of 2014, the pressure surrounding Andrew's death had reached a boiling point. That same month, the SEMCA board formally requested that the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation conduct an independent review of the task force, specifically focusing on their handling of Andrew as a confidential informant. One of the first things that the review board learned was that SEMCA did not typically complete pre-buying brief sheets before controlled buys. So these briefing sheets are standard documents in many task forces that outline the details of an operation, so every officer who's involved understands exactly what is happening. SEMCA's explanation was that they were a small group of officers who were working closely together, communicating daily, and that formal documentation wasn't necessary, which sounds efficient until something does go wrong, and then suddenly there's no paper trail. Deputy Jason Weber also addressed Andrew's compliance as a CI. He told the review board that Andrew initially followed instruction exactly as laid out, but over time, Andrew stopped contacting him. According to Weber, it wasn't uncommon for confidential informants to lose contact. He explained that CIs may stop communicating for a variety of reasons, like new criminal activity, incarceration, or relapse on drug use. Weber said it's not the responsibility of the officer to maintain contact with a CI. Instead, the responsibility falls on the informant to check in. He said officers may occasionally reach out to confirm whether a CI is still willing to work, but that's about it. Even still, Weber said he did attempt to contact Andrew after not hearing from him for a period of time, but Andrew never responded. You're going to have to check in with me every so often that we see fit. If you don't check in with me or if I lose contact with you, I'm just going to assume that you don't want to work anymore and then I'm just going to cut the warrants for your rest and then throw you in jail. So you're going to have to keep, you know, not like on a daily basis, but every few days you're just going to have to check in, just say, hey, this is what I found out, or I'm working on this, or I maybe got nothing, but you're going to have to check in with me and we'll go over that when we're done here. You understand that? Yes. Okay. Which, I mean, may have some truth to it. They didn't find Andrew's body until two months after he wasn't heard from. Deputy Weber also told the board that to fully resolve Andrew's pending charges, Andrew still needed to complete one additional controlled by involving the same individual from the January 2014 operation and another by from a new suspect. After reviewing Andrew's CI file and related case documents, the review board concluded that they had no concerns with how Semke handled this case in which Andrew conducted controlled buys. They also noted that the length of time Andrew was used as a CI was not considered unusual. Which is a striking conclusion considering how this ended, and also points further to the fact that Andrew wouldn't have run away if he only had two buys left, and the first three went pretty smoothly. So why now when he's so close to working off these ridiculous charges. The review board also received input from Tim Campbell, a Richland County Commissioner and SEMCA board member, who voiced strong support for the task force, describing SEMCA as a valuable and necessary law enforcement component in the region. But despite defending SEMCA's actions, the review board still issued four formal recommendations. First, they recommended that a pre-ops briefing sheet be completed prior to all operations, including controlled by walks, controlled by busts, and search warrants. Even if typed documentation wasn't feasible, some form of written briefing was advised. Second, they recommended that all operations begin with a briefing meeting, ensuring that every law enforcement officer involved had the same information and understanding. The pre-ops sheet would be used during that meaning. Third, the board recommended that a defined task force supervisor be formally assigned. While Deputy Weber had already been performing many coordinator duties, there had been no official appointment, leaving unclear lines of authority and accountability. And fourth, they recommended assigning a BCI agent directly to the Wappington area in Semcut to help with CI paperwork, buy funds, reporting, and jurisdictional coordination across agencies. So even though the board said nothing went wrong, they still recommended structural changes that directly address gaps in communication, oversight, and documentation, which seems a little contradictory. Yeah, exactly. So by December of 2014, Andrew's family openly challenged how the investigation into his death had been handled. Andrew's mother spoke out in multiple press interviews saying that law enforcement had failed to follow through on key promises, with one of the biggest being the river search. Tammy explained that police told the family the Red River would be searched as soon as the water levels dropped from the spring flood stage, something that should have happened about a month after Andrew disappeared. Instead, according to Tammy, no coordinated search was conducted. Andrew's body was only found because a dive team happened to be conducting a training exercise weeks after the waters had already receded. Tammy also criticized North Dakota State College of Science campus police, who were responsible for investigating both Andrew's disappearance and his death. She said they did not seriously explore possibilities that pointed toward homicide, instead defaulting quickly to a suicide narrative. Tammy did acknowledge that a .22 caliber pistol was missing from the home, but she questioned whether that fact alone justified the conclusion that Andrew had taken his own life, especially with his college graduation just two weeks away. She pointed out that Andrew had never expressed suicidal thoughts, had left no suicide note, and had shown no signs of planning to end his life. In fact, he was excited to begin his master's degree and secure a job in the tech field. And when you stack that against everything else we've already talked about, it's hard to see why suicide became the preferred explanation so fast. Exactly. Tammy also revealed that when Andrew initially disappeared, the family eventually brought his car back home from the campus. And when they did, they discovered the carpeting inside was completely soaked. And there were several inches of standing water in this spare tire well in the trunk. To the family, this suggested a disturbing possibility, that Andrew may have been killed elsewhere, placed in the trunk, driven to the river, and then the vehicle was returned to campus. And that theory becomes even more troubling when you learn that the parking lot security camera was not working that night. Tammy also said that she was told by someone that three people were seen cleaning a car similar to Andrew's on the night he disappeared. Despite these concerns, Tammy questioned why the case was never formally handed off to larger investigative agencies like the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, or the FBI. Which, by the way, is a fair question. The case did cross state lines due to Andrew's discovery in the Red River in Minnesota. And there were so many pieces of evidence that needed a larger organization with better resources to piece through it. Right. So feeling like her concerns weren't being taken seriously, Tammy started a Facebook page dedicated to Andrew's case. She said she would periodically release additional information pointing toward homicide, not sensationalizing her son's death, but to force investigators to look at the leads she felt that they were ignoring. Whether Andrew took his life or not, Andrew's family believed that he was strong-armed into becoming a confidential informant, which was dangerous even under the best circumstances, let alone for a 20-year-old first-time offender facing felony threats. By April of 2015, nearly a year after Andrew's body was found in the river, his mother was still trying to understand how her shy, gentle son ended up in such a dangerous situation. He was a quiet kid. He liked bowling. He liked activities like golf and other things. And he belonged to a club of students interested in electricity and electronics. He wasn't this reckless kid or chasing danger. And yet somehow he became entangled in a world of drug enforcement, which placed him in a situation that his family believes was extremely dangerous. But law enforcement maintained the opposite, that Andrew knew what he was getting into and cooperated of his own free will. But people who knew Andrew struggled to agree with that narrative. Christy Brandt, the principal of the high school where Andrew graduated, described him as a gentle soul who was never a troublemaker, always polite and always respectful of authority. And she doubted that that would have changed once he went to college. Exactly. He had a bright future ahead of him. I mean, he wanted to get his master's degree in electrical technology. Now, there's a lot of people who have looked into Andrew's case and they come away with the same lingering questions. Even for those who may believe that his death was ruled a suicide, there are details that continue to stand out. Some have questioned whether the pressure of his confidential informant status, tied to what started as a low-level marijuana charge, could have played a role in his mental state. And others focus on the physical circumstances. They ask, why were there rocks in his backpack? Why was his car wet? And do these details fully align with the official explanation? American Civil Liberties Union spokesperson Jennifer Cook said that the informants often perform one of the most dangerous roles in law enforcement without any training. She warned that the safety risks associated with informant use can far outweigh the benefits. But the Wobbington police, they continued to defend the practice, saying cooperation can help keep a felony off a young person's record. But Deputy Jason Weber, who later became interim task force supervisor, would not say whether Andrew was explicitly warned about the dangers of informant work. The document Andrew signed, it did not clearly spell out the risks. And of course, civil rights advocates said that was unacceptable. Jim Harrington argued that investigators need to be brutally honest. They have to say what the risks are, and they have to make sure that volunteers know what they're getting into, that they're entering a dangerous world and they might end up dead. Without that warning, consent doesn't really mean much. And Tammy still believed that the review of Semka's involvement in Andrew's case was never truly independent. She said that law enforcement agencies have each other's back and others agree with that. John Burden, the vice president of the National Police Accountability Project, said that when agencies investigate each other, There's just no way they can be truly objective. Which is exactly why Andrew's family is still fighting, because they don't believe he's ever received justice for his death. By December of 2015, Andrew's case had gone beyond North Dakota. That month, 60 Minutes aired a segment comparing his situation to another student at the same school, North Dakota State College of Science, who had also been arrested by Semca for selling marijuana on campus. Well, that student said that he was threatened with up to 30 years in prison if he didn't cooperate. But unlike Andrew, he declined to work as a confidential informant. He hired an attorney and ultimately received just two years of probation and an $800 fine. And that comparison raised a bigger question. If that was a possible outcome, why wasn't Andrew given the same clear option or protection before being placed into such a high-risk role? During that same broadcast, an undercover narcotics officer told 60 Minutes that law enforcement is not always required to inform someone of their right to an attorney before charges are formally filed. In practice, that can mean someone, especially a young or first-time offender, may not fully understand their rights or the long consequences of cooperating At the time there were also very few consistent policies across jurisdictions for how confidential informants were recruited particularly when it came to younger individuals with little to no prior experience with the legal system. And you have to remember, many of these kids enter into agreements to avoid charges. So since charges weren't filed, there's no need to inform them of a right to an attorney. And that exact loophole took place in Rachel Hoffman's case as well, and is exactly one of the reasons why Rachel's law was created in the first place. Right. So once this aired nationally, people in power finally started to pay attention. From the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Steve Cohen publicly called for an end to the practice of using nonviolent first-time offenders as confidential informants. In a phone interview following the 60 Minutes investigation, Cohen said that it was time for the Department of Justice to take a look at how the behavior of a confidential informant not only threatens to ruin young lives, but in some cases ends them. He said he intended to introduce legislative reforms. And one of his core concerns was that many people agree to become confidential informants before they are formally arrested, which allows officers to avoid giving Miranda warnings altogether, which is what Ricky was just talking about. Cohen argued that Miranda warnings should be mandatory for anyone being asked to become a CI. Cohen also said that there should be limits on what informants are asked to do, along with training requirements to ensure that informants are capable of handling the risks involved. And he specifically referenced Rachel Hoffman, which led to the passing of Rachel's law in Florida. And Andrew's case fits this same pattern. And Cohen questioned why marijuana offenders were being used as informants at all. He said that we don't need to be arresting people wholesale for marijuana, and that drugs like meth, cocaine, and heroin should be the priority for drug squads, not low-level marijuana cases. He said that it's all about money. Drug agencies want more money, more confiscations, more things to justify their existence. But he also expressed hope that reforms around marijuana laws and the use of confidential informants could start gaining traction, saying more lawmakers were becoming open to change. He expected to introduce legislation in early 2016. And by April of 2016, nearly two years after Andrew disappeared, his family still had no answers. And for them, that was unacceptable. Even though the case was technically still listed as active, it didn't feel like progress was being made. So Andrew's family, they began calling for the FBI to take over the investigation entirely. His story had already gained national attention with coverage from outlets like 60 Minutes, High Times, and Reason magazine. But even with that spotlight, answers still hadn't come. Some critics argued that a federal investigation was necessary, not just because the case had stalled, but because local investigators had worked alongside the same task force that had recruited Andrew as a confidential informant. And because of that connection, there were concerns about whether the investigation into Semka had truly been impartial. As pressure grew, there were increasing calls for federal authorities to step in and take a closer, independent look at what happened. Tammy said that when she last spoke publicly, she was beginning to accept that she might never get answers about how her son died. But even then, she said that she wasn't going to stop fighting because, if nothing else, she wanted to prevent other families from ever going through what she did, which is also a running theme in these cases. Right, and Rachel's family said the same. So Tammy began advocating for laws banning the use of college students as confidential informants. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenagem publicly said that Tammy deserves answers, but he opposed banning college students from being used as confidential informants. Critics noted that his office had already cleared Semka of wrongdoing, raising concerns about a potential conflict of interest. Meanwhile, Semco was still fully operational, continuing drug enforcement activities in southeastern North Dakota, raising fears that more college students could still be pressured into becoming informants. Critics asked why task forces were threatening young people with 40 years in prison over marijuana, while far more dangerous drugs were devastating communities and driving overdose deaths. Right. Compared to these other cases, Andrew was a small fry. And so was the other student at North Dakota. The family's attorney echoed the family's frustration, saying law enforcement had repeatedly failed to provide meaningful answers in cases just like Andrew's. And John Zadek spoke on it too, Andrew's father. He said that Andrew loved life. He loved his family. And he had no reason whatsoever, except for the pressure that he was under by Semka, to kill himself. At the end of the day, their request was heartbreakingly simple. since it still hadn't been fulfilled. They just wanted to know what happened. So on the second anniversary of the discovery of Andrew's body, his parents took another step into the fight for accountability by filing a wrongful death lawsuit against Richland County and Jason Weber, the SEMCA officer who had overseen Andrew's work as a confidential informant. maybe you know someone who has trouble putting that habit down and when you try to break that loop is usually when the cravings spike well we found something that has been helping people change that routine that's why we would like to talk to you about fume fume is a flavored air device it's designed to help people move away from that bad habit and do something better there's no nicotine. No batteries, no vapor. It's simple, natural. It's a weighted device that is also kind of fun to fidget with. One thing that I like is it gives you something to do in those moments when you just need something. You know what I mean? I have found myself picking it up just to fidget with instead of giving in to that automatic reach of that bad habit. And that little interruption is really the point. It helps break the pattern. So if you ever set a resolution and felt great on day one, but on day five, the craving or the habits creep back in. This is when something like fume can help interrupt that cycle and give you a different action to take. And what's really cool is they have different flavor cores. So different flavors that you can put into your fume. These flavors are nice, refreshing, light, more like a flavored water compared to soda. Crisp mint is their strongest flavor and it's great for people who want something bold. Raspberry is tangy and a little sweeter, which I personally like when I want something more refreshing. Right now, when you grab a journey pack, you will also get a free gift just for using our code SALAD. Fume has already helped over 700,000 people take steps toward better habits. And now it can be your turn. Head to tryfume.com. That's T-R-Y-F-U-M.com and use code SALAD to claim your free gift with a journey pack today. I'm Mandy. And I'm Melissa. And this is Moms and Mysteries. We're two Florida moms obsessed with true crime. From infamous cases like Ellen Greenberg to shocking Florida stories like the Dan Markell killing. With 55 million downloads, we bring you new deep dives every Tuesday and Thursday. Listen to Moms and Mysteries on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, this is Rob Benedict. And I am Richard Spate. We were both on a little show you might know called Supernatural. It had a pretty good run. 15 seasons, 327 episodes. And though we have seen, of course, every episode many times, we figured, hey, now that we're wrapped, let's watch it all again. And we can't do that alone. So we're inviting the cast and crew that made the show along for the ride. We've got writers, producers, composers, directors, and we'll, of course, have some actors on as well, including some certain guys that played some certain pretty iconic brothers. It was kind of a little bit of a left field choice in the best way possible. The note from Kripke was, he's great, we love him, but we're looking for like a really intelligent Duchovny type. With 15 seasons to explore, it's going to be the road trip of several lifetimes. So please join us and subscribe to Supernatural then and now. so the wrongful death lawsuit against richland county and jason weber it alleged that the county failed to properly train supervise and protect andrew for the dangerous rule he was asked to perform according to the complaint andrew was sent into situations that carried real risk without adequate preparation, safeguards, or oversight. Andrew was fundamentally misled. The suit also alleged that Andrew had been fraudulently deceived and that the severity of the punishment he faced if he refused to cooperate was grossly overstated. In other words, Andrew was led to believe that he was staring down decades in prison if he didn't comply, when in reality the likely outcome in court may have been far less severe. While that was happening, Andrew's case finally made its way to the North Dakota legislature. In 2017, lawmakers introduced Andrew's law. The goal was straightforward, which was to prevent other young people from being placed in the same dangerous position Andrew was in. At its core, the proposal sought to regulate how confidential informants are used, especially young first-time nonviolent offenders, focusing on adding safeguards that simply didn't exist when Andrew was pressured into cooperation. The first part of the section required the board to create clear rules for how licensed peace officers handle confidential informant agreements. It also gave the board authority to receive complaints and determine whether an officer's conduct violated the protections outlined in the rest of the bill. In addition, the board would be required to conduct annual audits to evaluate how effective those confidential informant training requirements actually were. So basically, this creates ongoing oversight for officers who are involved in training in managing confidential informants. That could mean denying, suspending, or revoking an officer's license. Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, this is about accountability, which a lot of people believe didn't happen in this case. On top of that, the bill tried to eliminate the gray areas. it clearly defined what counts as a confidential informant, what they're asked to do, and what they're promised in return. Because before this, a lot of those lines were vague, and that lack of clarity is part of what made situations like Andrews so dangerous. The bill also placed strict limits on using juveniles as confidential informants. It banned the use of anyone 15 years old or younger altogether. And for those between 15 and 18, law enforcement could only use them under very limited circumstances, like if they were legally emancipated, married, serving in the military, or if the risk of harm was considered minimal. Even then, a parent or guardian had to sign off on the agreement, and the juvenile had to consult with legal counsel first. The bill also limited the use of campus police, saying that a law enforcement officer employed as campus police may not enter an informant agreement with a student enrolled in a state institution of higher education, which when you think about it, this addresses a pretty obvious conflict of interest. The bill also introduced more structured training and clear guidelines for both law enforcement and confidential informants. Officers would be required to complete training at least once every three years with that training properly documented. And the board had to create rules focused on safety, including protecting informants, setting clear expectations for how they're trained, and making sure there are procedures in place to safely end those agreements. It also required written policies to protect an informant's identity and clearly outline what they're being offered in return. And importantly, every informant agreement had to be in writing. That included their Miranda rights, the benefits that they were being offered, the risks involved, the responsibilities, and the limits of the agreement. Plus, any waiver of the right to an attorney had to be signed separately and attached, making sure that the decision was clearly documented. It also addressed what happens if a confidential informant dies, requiring the supervising agency to step away from the investigation and notify the Attorney General. From there, the Attorney General must authorize an independent agency to take over. which directly addresses some of the concerns that Andrew's parents had and why they were calling for the FBI to investigate. The bill also provided guidelines for reporting violations of these rules, such as that reported violations must be investigated within 20 days and agencies must produce a written determination of whether a violation occurred within 45 days. There were also some guidelines involving court cases which used confidential informants. So in short, the bill covered every one of the perceived failures that took place in Andrew's case. With this proposal, it unanimously passed through the House of Representatives without any issues. But at the same time, as the Saddick's wrongful death lawsuit moved closer to trial, tensions around the case escalated once again. Jason Weber's attorney filed a motion asking the court to impose a gag order or a motion to suppress certain information from the trial, preventing Tammy and John, as well as their attorney, from publicly discussing any information they obtained during the discovery process. So nothing about the rocks in his backpack that he was wearing or a different jacket or that his wallet was missing. Weber's attorney argued that public disclosure of this information could interfere with the ongoing investigation into Andrew's death or taint a potential jury pool. He also pointed out to what he described as extremely prejudicial public statements that the Saddix had already made. The Saddick's attorney pushed back and explained that the Saddick's statements were general warnings to other parents about the dangers of allowing their children to serve as confidential informants, not an attempt to influence any lawsuit or a jury. And their attorney also acknowledged that some evidence uncovered during discovery could be restricted. But he also said that the Saddicks were not trying to undermine the legal process. They were just trying to prevent other families from living their nightmare. They were advocating, I mean, they shouldn't be punished for that. But shortly after, the court set a new trial date for April of 2018, while these matters could be reviewed. And by March of 2017, after unanimously passing the House of Representatives, and just eight days after emotional testimony from John and Tammy Sadek, the North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee completely gutted Andrew's law. Through amendment, the committee struck every single page of the original proposal, which was eight pages in total, and they replaced it with a two-page substitute amendment, which received a five-to-one approval. And when people say gutted, they mean it literally. Nothing of the original structure survived. The amendment shifted all authority away from the statute and handed it instead to the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board which is made up primarily of law enforcement Under the amended version that board would be responsible for establishing standards for proper confidential informant handling procedures and setting limits on officer conduct, which is basically law enforcement regulating itself. Exactly. The practical effect of that change was huge. Instead of clear, enforceable legal protections, Andrew's law became a promise of future guidelines written by the very institutions the bill was supposed to regulate. But senators held that the original version was too restrictive, and the decision to gut the bill was widely described as disgraceful, weak-minded, and intellectually dishonest, not just because it weakened protections, but because it came days after Andrew's parents sat before lawmakers and relived the worst moments of their lives. Critics warned that unless the bill was restored to its original intent in conference committee, the opportunity to acknowledge what happened to Andrew Sadek, and it should never happen again, would be wasted. And in April of 2017, a televised discussion about Andrew's law took place with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kelly Armstrong, where he acknowledged that he had worked with confidential informants in the past and was asked why the bill was gutted. Armstrong argued that law enforcement relies heavily on confidential informants to seize large quantities of drugs, especially through search warrants, and said the original bill was too detailed to put directly into statute. Instead, he said the committee wanted to move something forward that would eventually be refined, calling it a starting point instead of an ending point. But when pressed on specifics, especially the removal of the right to legal counsel, Armstrong conceded that those protections might be added later. So the interviewer pushed back, pointing out the massive spike in opioid and heroin deaths in North Dakota, and asked how confidential informants, especially young, untrained ones, were actually helping to stop that. And Armstrong reportedly said that information from informants often leads to large drug busts. But critics noted that Andrew wasn't working these heroin cases or infiltrating cartels. He was a college student caught selling $80 worth of marijuana. The interviewer referenced a moment where Matt Sanders, the other North Dakota college student who had a similar experience to Andrew, was allegedly told that if he cooperated, he could reduce his sentence by selling meth for $200 per transaction. He said that meth seems like an entirely different world than weed, and these people aren't being trained. But Armstrong shifted the focus back to training law enforcement, not informants. He acknowledged that many CIs are young adults who get caught up in things, while others are seasoned professionals who understand the system. He said he is not an expert in training for CIs, which is a wild statement being that he's the one shaping the law that governs it. The interview closed with another detail. Armstrong told the public that both sides would have equal time to testify. But viewers questioned why the state's attorney who helped draft the amended version of the bill was given additional time to work on revisions. Armstrong responded by saying the goal was to ensure the bill was shaped by people who understand this stuff, making it clear that law enforcement voices were being prioritized. By April of 2018, nearly four years after Andrew's death, his parents were still waiting for answers in their wrongful death suit. Instead of progress, the trial kept getting pushed back again and again because more information was needed. Although the investigation had been turned over to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the SADC's attorney said that they were told they would receive regular updates, and for a while they did, but those updates slowly stopped. According to their attorney, the last one had come at the end of February, two months earlier, and prior to that it had been quite some time. So they didn't know how active the investigation even was at that point. In an effort to find out what was actually being done, their attorney subpoenaed records related to the North Dakota State College of Science original investigation into Andrew's disappearance. But the school objected because the investigation was still ongoing, and releasing those records would jeopardize it. The attorney, of course, countered that he was willing to keep that information confidential, saying that Andrew's parents were not members of the general public, but the victim's family. They deserved answers, even if they couldn't use it at trial. But still, the answer was no. And when reporters went directly to campus police and asked them why the information couldn't be shared confidentially or what department was trying to hide. The response was that the investigation was ongoing and had to remain private. Reporters also tried talking to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who declined to answer questions, and a SEMCA officer who hung up the phone when they called. The Wahpeton police chief later said that his department had only a limited role in the investigation, despite the fact that he and other officers served on Semka's board. So no one had answers, and no one seemed to be willing to give them. But despite the resistance, the family's attorney said that they weren't going to stop. So now, the trial was postponed again until the Saddick's attorney could get more information. By 2019, after years of delays, motions, and unanswered questions, Andrew's parents finally reached a critical moment in their legal fight. That year, the district court granted the defense motion for summary judgment, effectively ending the case without a trial. The court acknowledged that there were no trial questions about whether Jason Weber and Richland County owed Andrew a duty of care and what that duty might have been. But it ultimately ruled that Weber's statements about Andrew potentially facing a long prison sentence were not legally deceitful. According to the court, Weber's comments were a prediction of future events, not a false statement of fact, and therefore not actionable deceit under the law. Even more significantly, the court ruled that the Saddicks had not produced sufficient evidence showing that Andrew's death was caused by the actions of Weber or the county. In other words, they concluded that there was no legal adequate link between what law enforcement did and Andrew's death. So the case never reached a jury, and with it, another chance at closure was taken away. And with no other options left, they appealed. But in 2020, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, saying that even under common law deceit standards, Weber's statement about potential prison time was still an inactionable prediction, not a misrepresentation of fact. And they didn't have significant evidence to survive summary judgment. To accept the family's argument, a jury would have to speculate. And why do they have a lack of evidence? Because no agency will give them any information about the investigation into this case. Now tell me how that makes sense. Right. So they were basically backed into a corner. There was literally nothing they could do because no one would help them find out what happened to their son. In fact, one person in the Supreme Court disagreed with the majority, arguing that the statics had presented more than enough evidence to let a jury decide the case. He pointed to the May 1st deadline Weber had allegedly set for Andrew to complete another controlled by, the text messages threatening imminent felony charges, and the fact that Andrew disappeared immediately afterward. He said that a jury can be instructed not to speculate and that he believed the close proximity in time between the May 1st deadline, text messages, and the date Sadek went missing is sufficient to allow a fact finder to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of death, but his opinion lost to the majority. But even after losing their case at the state's highest court, Tammy and John didn't stop looking for answers. The Saddicks filed another action in district court, this time seeking post-judgment relief, asking the court to reopen the case. They argued the original ruling granting summary judgment had relied on bad faith assertions made by Jason Weber. In other words, the court had been misled. But the district court rejected that request outright. The judge ruled that the motion was untimely and even sanctioned the Saddick's attorney, ordering him to pay $1,750, calling the filings frivolous because there was no active case before the court to reopen. So another blow to the family, telling them to stop knocking on doors. After that dismissal, Tammy made it clear that the court's decision hadn't changed what she believed happened to her son. She said that they knew that Andrew did not take his own life and that someone knows what happened to him on May 1st of 2014. She said they are always hopeful that the truth would come out. But the blow didn't stop there. Jason Weber, the deputy who oversaw Andrew's work as a CI, announced that he was running for sheriff of Richland County. His name would appear on the ballot for the November 2022 general election. And at the time, Weber had 24 years of experience with the sheriff's office. In campaign statements, he said he was running to continue building community relations with an emphasis on transparency and accountability within the department. Here's a quote. I believe efficiencies can help the department become more active throughout Richland County. I went to ensure deputies have the right equipment and training to keep those deputies and the public safe. Weber's campaign also included plans for increased interaction with local school systems at community events and a focus on treatment opportunities for drug and alcohol addiction rehabilitation. In campaign materials, Weber stated that drugs and alcohol are largely to blame for a vast majority of crimes. And by working together to provide more treatment opportunities, it allows individuals to recover from their addictions while becoming productive members of society. Which on paper, it sounds like an exciting reform. I mean, imagine watching the person you believe helped put your child in danger run for the highest law enforcement position in your county. While your questions are still unanswered, claiming to have accountability and transparency as main priorities. It's kind of fucked. And as a result, Tammy lobbied for Weber's opponent, Gary Rule, to win the race. As a result of that lobbying, Gary Rule did win the race to become sheriff in November of 2022, finally giving Andrew's family the smallest amount of victory after everything they had suffered through. But it still wasn't over for them. By early 2023, they tried one last legal avenue, asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to revisit their case, an appeal to the post-judgment motion they had filed in 2022 with the same arguments as before. And in the court's opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the Sadduck's motion for relief, saying that since the original judgment had already resolved all claims, there was nothing left to reopen. They also upheld that the original motion was frivolous, saying it showed no valid basis in law or fact and ignored prior rulings. The opinion reiterated the core legal problem, that there was no direct evidence tying Weber or the county to exactly how Andrew died. The timeline of events, no matter how suggestive, was not legally enough to show proximate cause. And to this day, there are still no answers about what happened to Andrew Sadek. and there is no justice or closure for Tammy or John Sadek. They're still lost in limbo, wondering if there'll ever be any progress or resolution in the allegedly ongoing investigation. The last post on the Justice for Andrew Facebook page is from summer of 2024, where they were tracking the case of another young man in the area who had gone missing and was also tragically found in the Red River shortly after. From there, updates for Andrew have gone quiet. So no arrests, no convictions, not even true litigation to correct what happened, and no information about what actually happened. Andrew had plans, a girlfriend, a family who loved him, and a bright future. People still wonder if Andrew was truly given a choice, if he understood the risks, and whether he should have ever been placed in situations this dangerous. The legal system didn't answer these questions, but they still matter. Andrew's life deserved protection. If you or someone you know has information about Andrew's case, or if this story raised concerns about confidential informant practices in your community, we encourage you to speak up, ask questions, and stay informed. Thank you for listening to Crime Salad. If you would like to support our show, please consider subscribing, leaving a positive review, and sharing this episode with a friend so that Andrew's story continues to be heard. We will see you next time. just like anyone else's and I have grown used to it to the darkness to the moon to the taste of blood on my tongue but vampires are dying out we are a fading kind and I am the first one created in so long and that is a dangerous thing to be those who came before me elders of all stripes they do not want to see our kind gone and they will do anything to keep their power and for myself and for grace who created me that is a sword that hangs above our heads and the worst The first person of all carries our secret, and he will use it however he sees fit. Who do you look to when things are at their darkest? From the creators of Parkdale Haunt comes Woodbine, a podcast about monsters, dreams, and changes. Those you want, and those you never saw coming. Season 2 arrives September 24th, distributed by Realm. Ever open up your podcast app, scroll forever, and still not know what to listen to? And there are millions of podcasts, and most of them, they just don't grab you. That's why I created Something You Should Know. Every episode is built around surprising, useful, and fascinating ideas. We're consistently ranked in Apple's top 200 with thousands of five-star reviews. But more importantly, people come back because they learn something interesting every time. If you're tired of searching and you just want something good to listen to, Try one episode of Something You Should Know right here on the platform you're listening on right now. If Bravo drama, pop culture chaos, and honest takes are your love language, you'll want All About Terry H podcast in your feed. Hosted by Roxanne and Chantel, this show breaks down Real Housewives reality TV and the moments everyone's group chat is arguing about. Roxanne's been spilling Bravo tea since 2010. And yes, we've interviewed Housewives royalty like Countess Luann and Teresa Giudice. smart recaps insider energy and zero fluff listen to all about trh podcasts on apple podcasts spotify or wherever you listen new episodes weekly