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. >{?
Cheer up, you have 2 dead cops and a new hero.
It means law abiding citizens were fortunate enough from being butchered by invasive thugs...it means the same thing it has for 200 years in America. If violent people unprovoked explode thru your front door, they face legal and violent consequences. Preferably a gun.
Of all people, law enforcement agencies should PROTECT us from communist tyranny like this. Instead, they CAUSE the attacks more and more.
Thanks to trial lawyers and gov agencies seeking revenue, we face ever increasing communist attacks on our private property and freedom every day.
If anyone crashes my door down unprovoked, they will face Judgement Day. No matter what costume they are wearing. It's real simple; you blow through my door, I wiill blow thru your chest cavity with a cannon.
I paid dearly for this private property. Generations of my family have given their blood to protect the land and Constitution from invasive thugs. It's an honor to continue to protect our freedom in their name
If we didn't have these laws, we'd just be another nation shooting at each other in the woods.
You can't just call up the police and have them kick someone out of your property. (Which really sucks, because if you ever foreclose on a property you own, once the foreclosure sale is completed the former "owners" now are trespassers - but then still must be evicted)
I know this case - the officers were there to serve something...the suppression issue is an interesting one that the defense might prevail on....
Johnnie Lawmaster returned home last December 16 to find that his front and back doors had been broken down with a battering ram, and his personal papers, legally-registered guns and ammo strewn all over the floor. Furniture was broken and gas, electricity and water had been shut off. The only explanation was a note reading: Nothing Found - ATF. Neighbors informed Lawmaster that 60agents in a joint team of local and state police and the Federal Bureau ofAlcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms had raided the house to search for illegal weapons. Lawmaster's lawyer is demanding to see the affidavit supporting the search warrant, but the Tulsa federal attorney has had it sealed.
The hell it isn't as bad - note that an attorney, demanding to see an affidavit for a search warrant that lead to the trashing of his client's home, is being denied that affidavit by a Federal Attorney. That's bullshit and not indicative of a free society.
Having assisted in the service of about 30+ search warrants I can assure you both that the police are required to leave a copy of the signed search warrant and the signed affidavit with the homeowner. Period, end of story.
A landlord cannot give the police a key to a tennant's residence for 4th Amendment purposes. IOW, a landlord request to the police to enter a tennant's residence does not alleviate the 4th Amendment prohibitions on the police. The tennant has an expectation of privacy that requires a search warrant for the police to enter unless some exigency exists. In terms of a home, a loud noise complaint is not a recognized exigency. Recognized exigencies include actual knowledge that a wanted felon is inside the residence, hot pursuit or seeing in plain view some sort of illegal activity (not "loud noise", and the police have to be legally in the position to see the contraband - i.e., they can't just walk into a yard and peer in windows to see if they see anything in "plain view")
Again, the suppression ruling is not clear cut by any means here.
Think about it: If you've just arrested someone who is high on drugs, he's going say whatever he can say to protect his own ass. Whether that means pointing the finger at an innocent, or simply being too stoned to get the address right, it doesn't really matter.
A TIP FROM A SOMEONE WHO IS A CRIMINAL SUSPECT, BY ITSELF, SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN A WARRANT AND DO "COMMANDO-STYLE" RAIDS. PERIOD.
This is just lazy law enforcement. They've got to do some due diligence and corroborate this type of evidence through other sources. With the "anti-terrorism" laws that now allow police to get warrants after the fact for wiretaps, there is NO excuse.
Oh, and about the topic that this thread is actually about, the police are in the wrong. No question. As far as I'm concerned, the mother is an accessory for providing the keys. I lived in an apartment that I rented from a less-than-professional landlord once, and it took my threatening to press charges to stop him from entering my unit illegally.
Having been a landlord in the past, you are certainly right about eviction. Furthurmore, if a renter claims hardship it is next to imposible to get an eviction.
All my lease agreements had a clause stating that the property owner or his agent had the right to inspect the property. By giving the police the key, they (the police) may have been acting as the owners agent. Jusa a thought.
As a former police officer I find you lack of perspective appalling. It is every citizen's responsibility to insure that your rights are respected by the police. That is accomplished by legitimate criticism of their actions.
My heart goes out to the families of my brother officers; but I am outraged at the mindset of the departments that lead to these horrific tragedies. Officers are not being taught to respect the Constitutional Rights of the individuals they encounter - leading to incidents like this.
My recollection of this incident is that these officers knew this individual to be of limited capacity, having dealt with him before. Once at the noise complaint, if they felt there was some sort of threat, the proper response is to secure the location to prevent violence and call for more units. Kicking in a door is a last resort and can only be done without a warrant in very limited, specific circumstances - which most likely didn't exist here.
The viewpoints you see being expressed are legitimate, if a bit crude. Police tactics have eroded to the point that even officers themselves are beginning to question what is occurring.
In the instant case, we now have two dead cops and an individual of limited intelligence charged with two murders. And it all could have been avoided had they been taught proper procedure - which comes from a healthy respect of the Constitutional Rights of individuals - even yours.
Bottom line, unless they have one of the recognized exigencies to enter without a warrant, they can't regardless of whether the landlord gives them a key or not.
With respect to the suppression hearing, if the judge rules they couldn't enter without a warrant, the State will not be able to sustain the murder charge - as they were armed trespassers. Also, the statements can be supressed as "fruits of the poisonous tree."
I don't think that makes it legal. I don't know about your jurisdiction, but where I am, for any entry to a rented premesis, the landlord must provide a minimum of 24 hours written notice, complete with a specific reason for entry. This applies to inspections too. The entry must be within "reasonable hours." I had fun with a landlord once whose definition of "reasonable" was Monday to Friday between 9 and 5. I was working overnights at the time, so my definition of reasonable was somewhat different.
The only exceptions to the 24-hour-notice rule are emergencies (e.g. fire, flood, etc.) and rental viewings to prospective tenants after the tenant has provided the proper 60-day notice that they plan to vacate, also subject to the vague "reasonable hours" language.
Do you even understand what constitutes murder? No, you don't. It is a pre-meditated, unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. The facts here don't constitute murder to begin with. There is no malice-aforethought or premeditation - even if the defendant comes back competent to stand trial. His own statements help him more than they hurt him with respect to his belief at the time he pulled the trigger. He didn't know they were police when he shot? The State will have a hard time proving he wasn't shooting in self-defense. But don't take it from me, it's just my job and I don't know what I'm talking about I guess.
More scary, is your absolute refusal to address my points. Sad and Scary. "Policeman requesting your assistance and then enter your abode?" What bullshit. You do realize that you have an absolute right not to speak to the police, don't you? You do realize that you have an absolute right not to open your door to the police, don't you? You do realize that the police are required to obtain a search warrant to enter your abode, don't your?
Why don't you go over to Democratic Underground where you belong?
SFW? My landlord has a key to my apartment, and were he to use it without following proper procedures, he would be breaking the law, just like these dead cops. If they had used a little common sense, they would be alive right now.
The legality of there entry doesn't turn on whether they had a key or whether they identified themselves as officers. (which, by the way, is a fact not in evidence, as there is no mention in this article that they identified themselves) Try sticking to the facts, counselor.
The legality of the entry turns on whether there was a recognized exigency that allowed them to enter without a warrant. A noise complaint is not a recognized exigency. Period.
Again, my heart goes out to the families of my brother officers. The whole incident is a tragedy...and it could have been avoided.
You, however, are the nutjob and I don't want you in my community. Next thing you know, you'd have everyone wearing brownshirts and high-stepping down the middle of the streets...
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.