Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Miranda warnings

Christopher Seiler appeals from his conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child. While on probation from prior convictions that included child sexual assault, Seiler in April 2007 was discovered parked alone in a car after dark with a juvenile female, in violation of his probation rules. Seiler was arrested and his agent visited him in jail, asking him to account for his recent activities and whereabouts, as his probation rules required him to do. Seiler told the agent that he was just discussing family issues with the girl. The agent disbelieved Seiler’s account and conducted a follow-up investigation. Thereafter the agent advised the sheriff’s department to investigate whether Seiler had sexual contact with the girl. The sheriff’s investigation resulted in the charge and conviction from which Seiler now appeals.

Seiler argues that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated because “the accusation against him was causally derived from a compelled, custodial statement to his probation agent without Miranda warnings,” i.e., by statements he made to the agent during their conversation about his whereabouts and activities. We reject Seiler’s argument because the investigation that led to Seiler’s charge was based on sources independent of his statements to the agent. The mere fact that Seiler happened to mention some of the people with whom the agent and sheriff’s investigators later spoke does not immunize him for prosecution for the crime the independent investigation uncovered. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453 (1972) (holding that “use and derivative use” immunity is “coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination”). Those he mentioned were already known to the agent and would have been contacted during the investigation regardless of Seiler’s mentioning them during his discussion with his agent while he was in jail. We affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP1911-CR State v. Seiler

Dist II, Ozaukee County, Malloy, J., Brown, C.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Schmaal, William E., Madison; For Respondent: Weinstein, Warren D., Madison; Gerol, Adam Y., Port Washington