Andrew Sadek’s case in ND Supreme Court, wrongful death suit

FARGO, N.D. (Valley News Live) - The case of college student Andrew Sadek, who became an informant for police, went to the North Dakota Supreme Court yesterday for oral arguments.

This comes as an effort to keep a wrongful death suit alive for the people and agencies the family says is responsible for the 20-year-old’s death in June of 2014.

The suit is filed against Richland County and Sheriff’s Deputy Jason Weber, the deputy who recruited Sadek as an informant.

Sadek had been arrested before his recruitment for selling marijuana twice to another criminal informant.

During his recruitment, Weber told Sadek the felony charges could result in up to 40 years in prison and a “good possibility” existed he would get some prison time if he did not act as a confidential informant.

Court documents say while Sadek was acting as an informant for Weber, he was found in the Red River with a gunshot wound to his head and a backpack full of rocks tied to his body.

Sadek’s parents allege Weber deceived their son.

They also allege their son’s death was caused by Weber’s negligence in failing to properly train and protect him as an informant.

In 2019, a judge dismissed the case.

The district judge ruled the misleading of Sadek in the deceit claim, Weber stating Sadek faced a lengthy prison sentence for his offense, was a prediction of future events.

The judge also decided the negligence claim failed as a matter of law because there was no evidence Weber’s actions were an immediate cause of Sadek’s death.

The Sadeks soon after filed a motion claiming the district court made a mistake on the case.

The Sadeks argue the district court erred when it decided the case is no longer pending and when it determined their motion was frivolous and issued sanctions.

When it was brought before the North Dakota Supreme Court in September of 2020, the court upheld the dismissal judgment by a 4-1 vote.

After the oral arguments yesterday to keep the wrongful death suit alive, the Supreme Court has taken the arguments under advisement.