Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door{ unreasonable search and seizure }
The Star Democrat ^ | April 04, 2002 | By: BRIAN HAAS

Posted on 04/05/2002 8:59:46 PM PST by freespeech1

Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door

* Outburst comes during evidence suppression hearing; ruling due today

By: BRIAN HAAS, Staff Writer April 04, 2002

FRANK ZITO ... faces death penalty

SALISBURY - "If they didn't break into my door, I wouldn't have shot them," Frank Zito blurted out Wednesday at a hearing to suppress evidence in Zito's murder trial.

Attorneys for both sides argued in Wicomico County Circuit Court whether several pieces of evidence, including several alleged admissions by Zito, should be allowed in the jury trial. Circuit Judge Donald C. Davis said he should issue a ruling on the motion to suppress evidence sometime today.

Zito, 41, of Centreville, faces the death penalty on two first-degree murder charges and several other felony and misdemeanor charges.

Police allege that he shot and killed Centreville Patrolman Michael S. Nickerson and Dfc. Jason Schwenz, of the Queen Anne's County Sheriff's Office. The two officers went to investigate a noise complaint in February of 2001 when police say Zito shot both officers with a shotgun.

Zito has pleaded not guilty and not criminally responsible to the charges against him.

Judge Davis heard testimony from several police officers and Wicomico County Detention Center employees as to what happened Feb. 13 and Feb. 14, 2001.

Maryland State Police Trooper Corey Skidmore was the first officer to testify and the only witness to the shooting. Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house.

After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady, Skidmore said. He said Zito's mother told the officers to get Zito out "by any means necessary."

After the three officers broke through a storm door and entered Zito's screen porch, Schwenz opened the front door with the key, Skidmore said.

As the door opened, Schwenz was hit with the first shotgun blast, followed by Nickerson, who was thrown backward, Skidmore said.

Skidmore said Zito had not seen him on the porch, so he waited for Zito to come out, sprayed his eyes with pepper spray and arrested Zito.

Maryland State Police Tfc. Brian Fisher was the officer who officially arrested Zito after the shooting, Fisher said. He testified that he took Zito away from the shooting scene and back near his patrol car.

Fisher said Zito was yelling "Nazi Gestapo" at the officers and complained that someone broke into his home. Fisher said Zito also told him he had put a shotgun under his couch.

At that point, Fisher said, he arrested Zito and read him his Miranda Rights. Though one of the Miranda Rights is the right to keep silent, Fisher said Zito kept talking.

"'I thought I was protecting my home,' " Fisher quoted Zito as saying. " 'I didn't know they were police until I got outside.' "

Robert E. Williams, an investigator for the Queen Anne's County State's Attorney Office, formally interviewed Zito for about an hour that night, Williams testified. Again Zito was told he could remain silent. But Zito "just started talking," Williams said.

Williams said Zito complained that police were trying to "beat (him) up" and threaten his mother. Then, Williams said, Zito described the events leading up to the shooting.

"'When they went to the second door, I got the 12-gauge and took the safety off,'" Williams said Zito explained. Then, as the door opened, "'I just shot.'"

"'I know I snagged that bastard,'" said Zito, according to Williams.

Williams said Zito talked with very little questioning by him or two other officers present at the interrogation.

Several other officers testified that Zito admitted shooting the two officers with no questioning. Two officers at the Wicomico County Detention Center also testified that they overheard Zito admit to the shooting while talking on the jail's telephone.

Defense lawyers later called Betty Zito to the stand. Wheeled into the courtroom in a wheelchair, Mrs. Zito was too weak to hold up her right hand to be sworn in. She lifted her right hand with her left hand as high as she could while being sworn in.

She testified that her son has his own trailer, which he rented from her. She said his rent is no different from the rent for the eight other trailers on her property.

She said Frank "wasn't so good" on Feb. 13, a condition made worse by the police breaking his storm door. She said police threatened to "tear gas" Zito's home unless he came outside.

She sobbed lightly as she described her frustration that day, trying to get someone on the telephone to help her and her son.

She said the only reason she gave the officers the key to Zito's trailer was so they wouldn't break his door and "tear gas" him.

Then she said she went around the side of Zito's trailer to peer inside and find him. That's when Mrs. Zito heard the "pop, pop" of the shotgun blasts, she said.

As defense lawyer Patricia Chappell wheeled Zito's mother past him and out of the courtroom, he gently put his hand on his mother's knee.

"Goodbye," she said as she passed from the courtroom.

In their closing arguments, defense lawyer Brian Shefferman argued that Zito's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated by the three officers. He said Zito did not consent to the officers coming on his premises even though they entered his enclosed porch.

Shefferman argued that all evidence that came about because of the "illegal" entry to Zito's trailer should be suppressed during the jury trial. Most of the testimony that would be lost if this motion were to be granted would be Trooper Skidmore's description of the shooting and the events leading up to it.

Shefferman also argued that statements that Zito made to officers throughout the night should be suppressed because Zito was injured when he made them. Officers testified earlier that Zito was bleeding from a cut on his face that night. >{?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: donutwatch; unreasonablesearch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-392 next last
To: D Joyce,Cultural Jihad
policestatedaily
161 posted on 04/06/2002 3:28:31 PM PST by freespeech1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

"Seems he was trespassing, and the owner wanted him evicted."

Then why didn't the cops knock on the door and serve an eviction notice?

162 posted on 04/06/2002 3:44:02 PM PST by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Swallowing camels and straining at gnats is a specialty of those who defend the murder of police officers.
163 posted on 04/06/2002 5:15:32 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Swallowing camels and straining at gnats is a specialty of those who defend the murder of police officers.

'Guilty until proven innocent' appears to be your cup of tea, no?

-The Hajman-
164 posted on 04/06/2002 5:22:35 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
Are you claiming that Zito didn't murder the two police officers?
165 posted on 04/06/2002 5:32:15 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Are you claiming that Zito didn't murder the two police officers?

Aye. From the evidence presented here (unless I hear otherwise), it sounds like a case of self-defense.

-The Hajman-
166 posted on 04/06/2002 5:46:14 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
...it sounds like a case of self-defense.

Bovine scat.

167 posted on 04/06/2002 5:49:07 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Bovine scat.

Is that the best argument you have?

-The Hajman-
168 posted on 04/06/2002 5:51:41 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense."

Please quote the supposed "evidence."

169 posted on 04/06/2002 5:55:33 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense."

Please quote the supposed "evidence."


From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were, and the police officers acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the behavior of proper police officers. They did the equivalent of breaking and entering.

-The Hajman-
170 posted on 04/06/2002 5:59:23 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were...

No quotes from the article in support of that falsehood, naturally.

"Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house. After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady..."

171 posted on 04/06/2002 6:10:36 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
Roscoe; - Bovine scat.

Is that the best argument you have? -The Hajman-

-------------------------

It is the ONLY consistent argument in his bag of tricks. Roscoe is very ho hum predictible.

172 posted on 04/06/2002 6:15:47 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
No quotes from the article in support of that falsehood, naturally.

"Skidmore said he arrived to back up Nickerson and Schwenz who were trying to get Zito to come out of his house. After being threatened, the officers got a key to Zito's trailer from his mother, Betty Zito, who was also Zito's landlady..."


We assume innocence. Which means the evidence has to point to guilt. If the evidence points to guilt, then we can introduce other evidence to try to prove the guilt evidence invalid. In this case, there's nothing that claims the guy knew who was trying to get into his house the second time around. You need to provide that evidence. Also the article says that the police basically did the equivalent of breaking and entering (a thief with a key getting into the house is still considered breaking and entering). They police didn't serve the man any notice. They didn't give provide a warrant. They simply stormed in (from what the article tells us). Also, you must show that the man knew they were police officers when he shot them. Apparently, he shot when they were opening the door (which may consitute self-defense against an unknown). Where's your evidence that it was premeditated killing with malice intent?

-The Hajman-
173 posted on 04/06/2002 6:16:57 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
Which means the evidence has to point to guilt.

Smoking shotgun, dead victims, living witness.

174 posted on 04/06/2002 6:19:14 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Smoking shotgun, dead victims, living witness.

Self-defense has these properties, in which case the man would be innocent of murder. Try again. Provide evidence that the man killed with malice aforethought and intent.

-The Hajman-
175 posted on 04/06/2002 6:20:42 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
1.From the thread, there appears resonable evidence the guy didn't know who the police officers were...

There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense." The claim is false.

2. Self-defense has these properties...

Begging the question. Zito wasn't attacked and he knew they were police officers, having refused their requests to come out.

176 posted on 04/06/2002 6:30:29 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
and me not being on the jury, who am I to decide his guilt or innocence? Yeah, that's the same thing you said about Clinton and OJ, right?

I guess you are reduced to parroting mush-mouthed liberal moral relativism now....

You've seen my posts on this site, to say I'm a rock-ribbed conservative would be an understatement. Are you actually in favor of police breaking in your door and dragging you out of your house without a warrant!?

You state that his mom wanted him evicted over some problem--whatever. If they had probable cause to enter his home, then there is enough probable cause for his arrest and to search his premises. That is precisely what a seach warrant is for!

Instead of following the legal 'niceties' to protect this fellows rights, they came barging in, not as police, but as law-breaking home invaders. I'm not sure I would react any differently than Zito in this case.

177 posted on 04/06/2002 6:30:32 PM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
There isn't any "evidence" in the thread supporting your claim of "self defense." The claim is false.

I just gave you some. The man didn't know who the police were. The police pushed into his house in an illegal manner. His innocence is assumed. Therefore, he's assumed innocent of murder, and it's read as self-defense. The only way it can be constructed as murder is if you can prove he killed the officers knowing full well who they were.

Begging the question. Zito wasn't attacked and he knew they were police officers, having refused their requests to come out.

The article states that the police officers went back a second time, and broke through a storm door. It's not reasonable to assume it's an officer breaking through a door when they're only investigating loud noises. I wouldn't think their police either. Do you have evidence the man knew who they were the second time they went there and broke down his door? If not, his innocence (that is, it was only self-defense) is assumed. Also, breaking and entering one's house is enough to justify self-defense in this manner. He didn't have to be attacked.

-The Hajman-
178 posted on 04/06/2002 6:38:18 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
The man didn't know who the police were.

Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

179 posted on 04/06/2002 6:43:38 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Unsupported and ridiculous. Still no quotes, naturally.

Unsupported? Don't you know what innocent until proven guilty means? It means the burden of proof is on you to prove him guilty. The supporting evidence that he didn't know who the police were is the lack of evidence that he knew who the police were when they came back. Also, the police acted in a manner consistent of a criminal breaking and entering. The man acted in a manner consistent of protecting his home against a criminal breaking and enterting (which is justifiable). However, for the supporting evidence that the man didn't know who they were:
Now, prove him wrong, or you don't have a case to stand on. BTW, 'rediculous' never proved anything. It would seem you're ignoring the small fact that the man claimed he didn't know who the police were, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

-The Hajman-
180 posted on 04/06/2002 6:52:25 PM PST by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 381-392 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson