Crime Salad: Confidential and Dangerous – The Andrew Sadek Case

Episode Date: February 22, 2026
Hosts: Ashley and Ricky

Episode Overview

This episode of Crime Salad delves into the tragic and complex story of Andrew Sadek, a 20-year-old college student who disappeared in 2014 after being pressured into working as a confidential informant (CI) for a local drug task force in North Dakota. Ashley and Ricky explore the events leading to Andrew's recruitment as a CI, the failures in oversight and protection, the investigation into his disappearance and death, the legal struggles faced by his family, and the broader implications for the use of informants in law enforcement.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Andrew's Background and Turning Point ([03:35]–[05:52])

• Who was Andrew Sadek?
  Andrew grew up on a cattle farm in rural North Dakota. Intelligent but shy, he had a passion for technology, enjoyed the outdoors, and was close with his family.
• The Incident:
  In April 2013, Andrew was caught selling small amounts of marijuana to a fellow student on campus—unbeknownst to him, that student was working as a CI.

Coercion and Recruitment as a Confidential Informant ([06:14]–[09:41])

• High-Pressure Tactics:
  Andrew faced two felony charges (enhanced due to proximity to a school), with potential penalties up to 40 years in prison. Confronted by Deputy James Weber, he was told cooperation as a CI could reduce or erase the charges.

  "So potentially, the max is 40 years in prison, $40,000 fine. You understand that?"
  — Deputy Weber ([07:48])

• Secrecy Required:
  Andrew was explicitly told not to reveal his informant status to anyone ([08:05]–[09:41]).

The Controlled Buys and Aftermath ([09:56]–[11:42])

• Three Controlled Buys:
  Over several months Andrew conducted controlled marijuana purchases under police direction, thinking this would clear his legal troubles ([10:20]–[11:42]).
• Continued Pressure:
  After completing three buys, he was reportedly told that more informant work was required ([25:18]–[26:03]).

Disappearance and Investigation ([11:42]–[14:30])

• Last Days:
  Andrew left his dorm at 2 am on May 1, 2014. Initially, friends and police did not suspect foul play, but days later he was reported missing.
• Authorities’ Assumptions:
  Law enforcement assumed Andrew had fled to avoid further informant work and issued arrest warrants against him ([13:15]).

The Discovery and Troubling Evidence ([19:14]–[21:20])

• Body Found:
  His remains were discovered in the Red River nearly two months later ([20:25]).
• Autopsy & Red Flags:
  Cause of death: gunshot wound to the head. No gun found in the river. Andrew’s backpack was filled with rocks, and his clothes did not match his last known outfit ([21:03]–[21:20]).

  "When Andrew Sadek's body was recovered, the black backpack he had been seen carrying in campus security footage was found filled with rocks."
  — Ricky ([21:03])

Law Enforcement Response & Oversight Failures ([22:37]–[27:54])

• SEMCA Defends Itself:
  Local officials maintained no wrongdoing in their use of CIs, dismissing the need for formal pre-operation documentation ([22:37]–[24:10]).
• Sloppy Documentation:
  SEMCA often lacked standardized operational paperwork, leading to questions about accountability (“no paper trail” [22:57]).

Family Advocacy and Systemic Concerns ([27:54]–[34:43])

• Parental Outrage:
  Andrew’s parents, Tammy and John Sadek, advocated for external investigation—citing failures in the search, missing evidence, and fast assumptions of suicide ([29:39]).
• “Justice for Andrew” Movement:
  Tammy launched a Facebook campaign and called for federal intervention ([30:57]).
• Wider Pattern:
  Their experience echoes that of other families whose children were pressured into CI work and died.

National Impact and Policy Debate ([34:43]–[39:39])

• Media and Legislative Focus:
  60 Minutes featured the case, exposing that other students, with proper legal counsel, received far lighter penalties without being CIs.
• Miranda & Consent Loopholes:
  Law enforcement can ask young offenders to become CIs before formal charges, skirting Miranda warnings ([36:15]–[37:53]).

  "Cohen argued that Miranda warnings should be mandatory for anyone being asked to become a CI."
  — Ashley ([37:53])

Legal Battles: Lawsuits and Andrew’s Law ([41:09]–[53:08])

• Wrongful Death Lawsuit:
  The Sadeks sued Richland County and Deputy Weber, arguing negligence and coercion. The litigation faced constant stonewalling, delays, and suppression motions ([44:52]–[51:11]).
• Legislative Reform – Andrew’s Law:
  A comprehensive bill was drafted to:
  • Define CIs, their protections and roles
  • Restrict the use of young informants
  • Mandate written agreements and disclosures, including Miranda rights ([46:39]–[49:09])
• Political Undermining:
  After emotional family testimony, the Senate Judiciary Committee “gutted” the bill, handing oversight to the law enforcement-run Peace Officer Standards and Training Board ([52:04]–[52:37]).

  "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."
  — Ashley ([52:37])

Legal Outcomes and Continuing Advocacy ([57:18]–[65:28])

• Case Dismissed:
  The family’s lawsuit was dismissed. The courts ruled that law enforcement’s threats of prison were “predictions,” not actionable deceit, and found no direct evidence connecting officers’ actions to Andrew’s death ([59:16]–[60:01]).
• Supreme Court Appeal:
  The North Dakota Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. Dissenting justices argued that there was ample circumstantial evidence for a jury ([60:01]).
• Advocacy Continues:
  Despite mounting legal hurdles, the Sadeks refused to give up, lobbying against those they deemed responsible ([61:46]–[63:40]).

Memorable Quotes

On Coercion

"You're facing two felonies...So potentially, the max is 40 years in prison, $40,000 fine. You understand that?"
— Deputy Weber ([07:48])

On Systemic Deficiencies

"It sounds efficient until something does go wrong and then suddenly there's no paper trail."
— Ashley ([22:57])

On Legal Loopholes

"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."
— Ricky ([36:15])

On Legislative Disappointment

"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."
— Ashley ([52:37])

On Parental Advocacy

"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."
— Ashley ([61:46])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:35]: Andrew Sadek’s early life and character
• [05:52]: Marijuana sales and sting operation
• [07:08]–[09:41]: Coercion into confidential informant role (direct quotes from Deputy Weber)
• [11:42]: Andrew’s life as an informant
• [12:55]: Disappearance and initial investigation
• [20:25]: Andrew’s body found and autopsy results
• [22:57]: SEMCA’s lack of operational documentation
• [27:54]: Family criticism and evidence overlooked
• [34:43]: Media attention and gaps in CI protections
• [44:52]: The wrongful death lawsuit
• [46:39]: Introduction of proposed “Andrew’s Law” reforms
• [52:04]: Legislative gutting of reform bill
• [59:16]: Court dismisses the lawsuit—legal rationale
• [63:40]: Family’s ongoing advocacy, election results
• [65:28]: Current status—no closure or justice

Noteworthy Reflections & Closing Thoughts

• Unanswered Questions:
  Andrew’s case leaves troubling questions: Why was a young, non-violent offender pressured into dangerous CI work? Why was his death ruled a suicide with ample evidence suggesting possible foul play? Why did legislative and investigative bodies close ranks instead of seeking truth?
• Wider Implications:
  The episode underlines a national pattern—untrained, vulnerable students coerced into informant roles with little oversight or protection. Even after tragedy, systemic accountability remains elusive.
• Ongoing Fight:
  Ashley and Ricky highlight the Sadek family’s resilience and ongoing campaign for reform, justice, and answers—not just for Andrew, but for others at risk.

Summary Table

| Segment | Topic | Key Moment / Quote | Timestamp | |------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------| | Opening | Background on Andrew Sadek | "A boy who vanished from his college dorm..." | [01:55] | | Recruitment | Coercive CI tactics | Deputy Weber's ultimatum | [07:48] | | Disappearance | Andrew goes missing | "Andrew had left the dorm...2am on May 1" | [12:55] | | Investigation | Body found, autopsy raises doubts | "Backpack filled with rocks" | [21:03] | | Systemic Issues | Lack of oversight, family advocacy | Tammi Sadek’s criticisms | [27:54] | | Legislative | Andrew’s Law introduced, then gutted | "The practical effect of that change..." | [52:37] | | Legal Outcome | Dismissal of lawsuit, Supreme Court appeal | "No answers...no information about what happened" | [65:28] |

Final Note

Ashley and Ricky urge listeners to remain vigilant about confidential informant practices, especially in their communities, and to demand accountability and transparency from law enforcement. The episode serves as both a memorial for Andrew Sadek and a call for ongoing reform.