On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146

Issue/Holding:

¶26 The trial court here did not find a nexus in the affidavit between the items sought and the house to be searched. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded, in deference to the judge who signed the warrant, that “[t]here’s the good faith exception here. If I were confronted with this affidavit, I think I would have issued the warrant.”

¶27 … “Good faith” is not a doctrine that absolves the neutral and detached judge or magistrate from a careful,

State v. Cesar Farias-Mendoza, 2006 WI App 134
For Farias-Mendoza: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The “causal chain” between the defendant’s illegal arrest and his statement wasn’t attenuated where: he gave the statement within 25 minutes of the circumstance establishing the arrest, ¶¶28-29; there were no intervening circumstances, ¶¶30-31; and, there were suggestions of purposeful misconduct, ¶¶32-34.

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The good-faith exception is inapplicable when indicia of probable cause are so lacking as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable. This inquiry is distinct from the question of whether the supporting facts are clearly insufficient.

¶33      Under Leon‘s rationale,

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The search warrant was supported by sufficient “indicia of probable cause” to trigger the good-faith exception, including the following: Marquardt had not been seen for two days following his mother’s homicide, raising suspicion about his absence; the victim was covered in a blanket,

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The “significant investigation” requirement of State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98 is satisfied:

¶52      Investigator Price estimated that over the course of March 13 and 14, a total of 20 law enforcement officers had become involved in the investigation of the homicide.

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: “(E)vidence acquired outside of the home after an in-home arrest in violation of Payton is not a product of the illegal governmental activity, if officers had probable cause to arrest developed apart from the illegal entry,” ¶23;

State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 74
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman

Issue/Holding:

¶11. The trial court held that there had been no violation of SCR 20:4.2 and that even if there had been, suppression would not be the remedy. We agree with the trial court that suppression is not available for an ethics violation.

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.

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.