Frank Zito says he shot police because they broke his door{ unreasonable search and seizure }

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.'"

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.

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. >{?

Pitiful. Zito murdered two police officers with a shotgun when they returned to his trailer.

You're the one who's pitiful. You ask for evidence, I give you it, you reject it out of hand. You haven't brought up a shred of evidence to back up your statements (and the evidence you did bring up didn't prove that the guy knew they were police officers when they came around the second time). You're assuming he's guilty. That won't go in court.

I hope he tries out your absurd argument to the jury.

From the article:

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.

They already gave part of it. I'm sure the rest will come out in court. We'll see how this plays out. Personally, I think he'll get off with the self-defense charge, seeing the lack of evidence for his guilt (unless there's other evidence beyond this article, which is possible. In which case, he should be found guilty of murder).

I hope I never see you on a jury. You'll probably be yelling "He's guilty! There's no evidence to prove he's innocent! He's guilty!" That's not how our courts work (and if you were familiar in any way to the court system, you'd realize that).

-The Hajman-

You ask for evidence, I give you it...

You did no such thing. I'm still waiting for you to quote the "reasonable evidence" you claim exists in this thread.

"He said Zito did not consent to the officers coming on his premises even though they entered his enclosed porch."

He didn't give the police consent to enter his mother's trailer and that he didn't know that they were police officers.

Priceless.

You did no such thing. I'm still waiting for you to quote the "reasonable evidence" you claim exists in this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post. Let me try again, for the vision impared:

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

And yes, that is reasonable evidence. You want to call him wrong, you're going to have to prove it.

He didn't give the police consent to enter his mother's trailer and that he didn't know that they were police officers.

Such a predictable statement. If someone broke into my house, and I didn't know who they were, the statement "I didn't give my consent" would still be true. Not knowing who the police were, and not giving his consent, are not exclusive. You're really reaching to try to claim your argument. Our court systems really don't need people like you who claim the person's guilty until proven innocent.

-The Hajman-

The quote at last. That self-serving statement from the killer is the sum of your "reasonable" evidence?

I gave the quote in post #180. Too bad you missed it, even though I had it sitting right out in front where even a blind bat couldn't miss it. And yes, it's reasonable evidence, because there's no evidence to the contrary.

He's as good as convicted.

In other words, you believe he's guilty until proven innocent. He's as good as innocent (unless some other evidence comes out), actually. You know why? Because the courts will assume he's innocent until they prove him guilty. In other words, they'll assume he's telling the truth, unless it can be proven otherwise. Too bad you don't understand how the court system works (or is supposed to). Innocent until proven guilty is one of the base components of it. Hate to burst your bubble, but they arn't going to assume he's lying and guilty.

-The Hajman-

In other words, you believe he's guilty until proven innocent.

He committed the shotgun murder of two police who returned the trailer after he refused to come out after a disturbance call. You have the killer, the victims, the smoking gun and a living witness.

Let's see how the jury decides.

I've got a hundred dollar donation to FreeRepublic that says Zito goes to prison. Would you care to make a wager?

He committed the shotgun murder of two police who returned the trailer after he refused to come out after a disturbance call. You have the killer, the victims, the smoking gun and a living witness.

Sorry, but that does not prove a murder.

Let's see how the jury decides.

Yes, let's.

I've got a hundred dollar donation to FreeRepublic that says Zito goes to prison. Would you care to make a wager?

Nope. For one thing, I don't have enough money to even pay my bills, much less make a wager with (which is what happens when one has job problems). And second, other evidence could come out to prove his guilt. However, I will say this: I believe the court will find him innocent of murder if no other evidence beyond what this article supplies comes out.

-The Hajman-

Yeah, if Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past, I would effect an entry ... with his mother's spare set of keys and at her behest ... to ensure that he was not in danger of hurting himself or others during a psychotic episode because it is what is right and humane and it is part of my fekking job! Those two officers knew this guy well enough to never expect a 12 gauge assault upon their entry, but they were doing their jobs valiantly, and anyone who thinks what happened that day was evidence of a growing police state can stick blue apples up their asses until the next millenium beach blanket bunker party.

Oh, and regards.

Gotta go with Roscoe on this one...if you read the 911 transcript it appears his mother got on the phone with him and from what he said to her it is apparent to me he knew they were officers.

The problem for the officers, if this gets appealed, is whether they lawfully could enter the residence. The Circuit Court judge already ruled they couldn't. That's a no brainer.

Sorry Roscoe, people don't have to obey a "request" by an officer to come out of their residence where the only issue is a noise complaint - that's called living in a free country. At that point the officers had no cause to enter the residence without a warrant. Had there truly been "threats" then the officers were faced with a barricade situation and, by procedure, are required to call out an emergency response team. The officers didn't...for whatever reason. The judge ruled their actions unconstitutional. (This is why I say "had there truly been 'threats' "; because this might have created an exigency that would have allowed a warrantless entry. Presumably the Judge heard all the evidence prior to ruling on the constitutionality of their entry and did not find an exigency.)

FWIW - if the State can prove this guy committed a premeditated murder of two cops they should fry him...but if I were a betting man I'd bet they won't be able to prove First Degree Murder on these facts.

The other problem for the Police, sorry Roscoe and the rest of you statists, if the police are making an illegal entry they are committing a felony due to the fact that they are armed. At that point all bets are off regarding self-defense and other issues.

Put another way, I know that I haven't committed any crimes and if I wake up tommorrow at 0230 and see men in my house with guns I'll start shooting. If they are police, am I guilty of murder? NO. Before you call me crazy, go talk to the next cop you see and ask him or her what he or she would do if they woke up in the middle of the night with armed individuals in their house, regardless of whether those individuals purport to be police via their uniforms? You'll get the same answer. We all know that home invaders are using the Galls cataloug to order uniforms so that their victims are more likely to comply.

We still live in a free country where your home is your castle - and you are allowed to defend it if you are a law-abiding citizen.

Which I am.

It's a fine line between a trailer-bound murderous sociopath and a mail-order lawyer/State Prosecutor.
190 posted on 4/7/02 1:29 AM Eastern by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

After you spend time as a cop and graduate from an accredited law school you can get back to me and hurl all the insults you want...until then you're just another armchair lawyer with not one ounce of common sense; legal knowledge or knowledge of police procedure and why it exists.

Piss off.

Yeah, if Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past, I would effect an entry ... with his mother's spare set of keys and at her behest ... to ensure that he was not in danger of hurting himself or others during a psychotic episode because it is what is right and humane and it is part of my fekking job!

Actually a Judge disagrees with you...guess he's a mail order judge. Additionally, this report is the only report where I see mention of 'threats' - there's no mention of threats in the 911 transcript...so your assertions about "Zito was screaming incoherently and making threats from his domicile, and I knew of his psychotic episodes in the past" are facts not in evidence. You sound like every two-bit, fascist, liberal defense attorney I deal with that will lie and say anything to get a guilty client off.

Every time you open you mouth you display your absolute ignorance for all to see.

The only difference between you getting shotgunned to death and these two officers is that the loss of the two officers is a tragedy.

How do you know he was doing these things. According to abundy, the record shows nothing like this.

Here is a guy that was doing crazy things, you say. He is armed. He has a past of psychotic episodes, you say. And you would have effected the dynamic entry anyway? Why? Evidently it got two officers killed. Why not just lay seige to his house? Talk to him. Negotiate.

How was he a danger to others, holed up in his house? How was he a danger to himself? Afraid he would commit suicide? When you want to order a potentially deadly assault on him? Oh, yes, no one knew he was armed. Every day I read about officers taking precautions because a subject may be armed.

Excuse me, but I think you would have gotten more officers killed had you been in charge. So, you're not a hypocrite, you're something worse. A hypocrite usually only hurts himself, one who would put officers' live in jepordy over a bruised ego hurts the entire public he works for.

The prosecution called Dr. Steven B. Goldberg, director of pretrial services and admissions at the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital. Goldberg testified that Zito is competent to stand trial as shown by his understanding of the different roles in a jury, the charges against him, the possible punishments he faces, and different defense strategies.
Though Goldberg agreed with the previous two doctors' diagnosis for Zito, Goldberg said they left out two important aspects of Zito's mental illness: a history of past alcohol and drug dependency and an "anti-social personality disorder." Goldberg said much of Zito's perceived paranoia and belief in conspiracies stem from the fact that he has had trouble with authority his entire life.
The Star Democrat | March 29, 2002 | By: BRIAN HAAS

Hmmmm.

1. Did the cops do break the law trying to enforce it?

2. Did the cops illegally enter the home of the defendant?

3. Does the home owner have the right to defend his home against illegal entry?

Thats all there is to this argument. If the cops broke the law trying to enforce it, they were wrong. If the defendant illegally entered the home of the police, would they have the right to use force to stop him?

Reminds me of an episode of "Picket Fences" where the sherriff (played by Tom Skerritt) was on a jury where a drug dealer was being tried for opening fire on cops breaking into his apartment. Since the cops just broke in and didn't identify themselves, Skerritt made a point where the dealer was firing in self defense. I guess in that case, it is a bit of a stretch, but I'd say there could be some grounds there.

I think the best way is the police to identify who they are as they are knocking on the door, at least to make it legal because if they just barge in, the person in the house could think they are robbers or whatnot. I guess in situations like a standoff and such, barging in would be OK since the perp knows he is surrounded anyhow and know the cops are out there.

Generally, I support strong law enforcement and tough sentencing for violent criminals, but I think we need to honor the protections that are given to us in the Constitution as well. The militarization of law enforcement is kind of disturbing to me. Sure SWAT teams are needed, but when you expand it to the rank and file cops, I think that's when it can really backfire on you.

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.