On Point blog, page 2 of 2
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right –Violation of Statute, § 175.40(6)
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta
Issue/Holding: Any violation of § 175.40(6), which regulates the arrest power of an officer operating outside territorial jurisdiction would not support suppression as a remedy:
¶30. Assuming arguendo that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department had not adopted the written policies required by Wis. Stat. § 175.40(6)(d), we agree with the State that suppression is not a remedy for such a statutory transgression.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — violation of nonconstitutional right prison discipline
State v. Joseph Steffes, 2003 WI App 55, PFR filed 3/13/03
For Steffes: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding: Violation of administrative code provision does not support suppression. ¶¶9, 25.
But: this decision was based largely on State ex rel. Peckham v. Krenke, 229 Wis. 2d 778, 601 N.W.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1999), a case that was essentially overruled by State v.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – Investigative Stop Outside Officer’s Jurisdiction
State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler
Issue/Holding: Evidence not suppressible merely because seized by officer effectuating stop outside of his or her jurisdiction: there is no “reason to ignore the well-established rule that suppression is required only when evidence is obtained in violation of a constitutional right or in violation of a statute providing suppression as a remedy,”
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – § 968.255 (Strip Searches)
State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶25. We conclude, however, that we need not address whether police may conduct a consensual strip search free of the statutory restrictions. Absent a constitutional violation, a court may not suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute except where the statute ‘specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction.’
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right — Unauthorized Practice of Law
State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64, reversing 2001 WI App 145, 246 Wis. 2d 533, 629 N.W.2d 31
For Noble: Thomas H. Boyd
Issue/Holding: Suppression of evidence is required only where it has been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or of a statute specifically providing for suppression as a remedy. ¶14.
Issue: Whether, assuming that a detective’s examining defendant at a John Doe proceeding amounted to violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – Statutory Building Inspection Procedure
State v. Albert Jackowski, 2001 WI App 187
For Jackowski: Ronald C. Shiroka
Issue: Whether violation of a statutory requirement for issuance of a building inspection warrant (namely, the § 66.0119(2) condition that such a warrant be issued only upon showing that consent to enter was refused) supports suppression of evidence obtained after entry under the warrant.
Holding:
¶17. We accept, however, the State’s alternative argument that refusal of consent is not a constitutional requirement for issuance of an administrative warrant,