Police Shooting
In Rochester
Called Justified

The following report was issued this week by Asst. Atty. Gen. Cindy Maguire relative to the Oct. 15 police shooting death of Maurice Lizotte in Rochester.

The Attorney General’s Office announced today that it has completed its review of the Vermont State Police Investigation into the police shooting incident that occurred on Oct. 15, in the town of Rochester.

The office has concluded, as a matter of law, that the Vermont State Troopers involved were legally justified in the use of deadly force against Maurice Lizotte.

The legal standard of review for use of deadly force is whether the office reasonably believed he or a third party was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and that deadly force was a necessary response to remove that threat.

According to the police investigation, on Oct. 14, Lisa and Patrick Whitley, two family members of Maurice Lizotte, contacted Rochester Town Constable Tom Simpson regarding concern for Lizotte’s welfare. The following day, on Oct. 15, at approximately 6:40 p.m. Simpson went to the residence to check on Lizotte and as he approached he heard loud growling and something being thrown or kicked against the door. Simpson then observed Lizotte break a window with his hand. Simpson did not know the extent of Lizotte’s injury from breaking the window. Simpson left to obtain assistance.

Simpson returned at approximately 9 p.m., with Lizotte’s son-in-law Patrick Whitley, Second Constable Paul Frigault, and three members of the Vermont State Police; Sgt. John Helfant, Sr. Tpr. Craig Gardner and Sr. Tpr. Paul Feeney. Prior to arriving at the residence the officers and Whitley had met and discussed the situation at length. During the meeting all parties were advised that Lizotte was currently living alone, that he suffered from mental health issues and that there were firearms in the residence.

It was agreed that persons Lizotte was familiar with (Whitley, Simpson and Gardner) would approach the residence to contact Lizotte and, if possible to ascertain whether Lizotte had injured himself and to assess his condition.

Whitley approached the side entrance of the house accompanied by Simpson and Gardner. The three remaining officers positioned themselves in the driveway near vehicles. Whitley had a very brief verbal exchange with Lizotte during which it became evident that Lizotte did not recognize Simpson or Gardner. Immediately following this exchange Officers Helfant and Feeney observed some back and forth movement from within the residence and warned Whitley, Simpson and Gardner to move.

Lizotte then broke out a second window, near the front door, and fired a shot from a rifle in the direction of Helfant and Feeney. Helfant and Feeney returned fire—Helfant with a rifle and Feeney with a handgun. They observed Lizotte withdraw his rifle back in from the window and then push it back out and fire again. Upon seeing this action, Helfant and Feeney continued to fire and subsequently observed Lizotte disappear into the residence. Helfant and Feeney fired a total of 39 rounds, 12 of which were suppressive fire to allow Helfant to move from his location to a vehicle in order to access a radio.

Helfant requested backup and an ambulance. Efforts to contact Lizotte were resumed, but were unsuccessful. It was not certain at this time whether Lizotte’s lack of response was due to injury. At approximately 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 16, the Vermont State police Tactical Support Unit entered the residence. Inside the residence they found Lizotte alive but suffering from a gunshot wound to the head.

Adjacent to Lizotte was found a Model 94 Winchester level action rifle, cal. 32-40. This is a high-powered rifle capable of passing through a vehicle as well as defeating the body armor worn by most state troopers. On Oct. 17, 2002, Lizotte died as a result of the single gunshot wound to his head.

Under the facts of this case, the Attorney General’s Office has concluded that Sgt. Helfant and Tpr. Feeney were reasonable in their belief that Maurice Lizotte posed an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to them by twice firing a rifle in their direction. In view of the facts of this case the use of deadly force by the officers was, as a matter of law, justified.

____________