State v. Verkuylen

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

State v. Verkuylen

352 N.W.2d 668, 120 Wis. 2d 59, 1984 Wisc. App. LEXIS 4047

CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin

DecidedJune 12, 1984

Docket83-634-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 352 N.W.2d 668 (State v. Verkuylen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Verkuylen, 352 N.W.2d 668, 120 Wis. 2d 59, 1984 Wisc. App. LEXIS 4047 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

FOLEY, P.J.

The state appeals the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained in executing a search warrant issued by a court commissioner. The court suppressed the evidence because the commissioner, due to a judicial oversight, had not been formally authorized to issue search warrants. See sec. 757.69(1) (b), Stats.¹ Because we conclude that this oversight does not justify suppression of the evidence in this case, we reverse the order and remand this matter to the circuit court with directions to admit the evidence.

The state concedes that the commissioner’s warrant was defective under State v. Loney, 110 Wis. 2d 256, 328 N.W.2d 872 (1982). Loney does not, however, hold that the court must suppress the evidence seized while executing the defective warrant.

The suppression of evidence is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). It is a judge-made requirement to deter unreasonable or bad-faith police conduct. United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 880, 841-42, 847 (5th Cir. 1980). Its application must be considered in light of its effect of depriving the court or jury of relevant evidence, endangering society, [61]*61and allowing the guilty to go free. Id. at 842. Suppression is therefore required only upon a showing that evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right, State v. Hochman, 2 Wis. 2d 410, 419, 86 N.W.2d 446, 451 (1957), or when a statute specifically requires suppression of illegally obtained evidence, see State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971).

In this case, no constitutional right was violated, and no statute requires suppression. The commissioner who issued the search warrant was neutral, and he acted upon probable cause. He had been issuing search warrants for years, and the circuit judges in the district knew and approved of him issuing warrants. The failure of a judge to formally authorize the commissioner to issue search warrants was nothing more than a judicial oversight, which has since been corrected. The oversight was not the fault of the police, and the police did not benefit from it. Under these circumstances, the court should not suppress the evidence. See Williams, 622 F.2d at 847.

By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOLEY, P.J.

The state appeals the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained in executing a search warrant issued by a court commissioner. The court suppressed the evidence because the commissioner, due to a judicial oversight, had not been formally authorized to issue search warrants. See sec. 757.69(1) (b), Stats.¹ Because we conclude that this oversight does not justify suppression of the evidence in this case, we reverse the order and remand this matter to the circuit court with directions to admit the evidence.

The state concedes that the commissioner’s warrant was defective under State v. Loney, 110 Wis. 2d 256, 328 N.W.2d 872 (1982). Loney does not, however, hold that the court must suppress the evidence seized while executing the defective warrant.

The suppression of evidence is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). It is a judge-made requirement to deter unreasonable or bad-faith police conduct. United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 880, 841-42, 847 (5th Cir. 1980). Its application must be considered in light of its effect of depriving the court or jury of relevant evidence, endangering society, [61]*61and allowing the guilty to go free. Id. at 842. Suppression is therefore required only upon a showing that evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right, State v. Hochman, 2 Wis. 2d 410, 419, 86 N.W.2d 446, 451 (1957), or when a statute specifically requires suppression of illegally obtained evidence, see State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971).

In this case, no constitutional right was violated, and no statute requires suppression. The commissioner who issued the search warrant was neutral, and he acted upon probable cause. He had been issuing search warrants for years, and the circuit judges in the district knew and approved of him issuing warrants. The failure of a judge to formally authorize the commissioner to issue search warrants was nothing more than a judicial oversight, which has since been corrected. The oversight was not the fault of the police, and the police did not benefit from it. Under these circumstances, the court should not suppress the evidence. See Williams, 622 F.2d at 847.

By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 N.W.2d 668, 120 Wis. 2d 59, 1984 Wisc. App. LEXIS 4047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-verkuylen-wisctapp-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack