01-1398 State v. Jones

Listen to this article

And, even though the key information in the warrant affidavit was more than six-months old, which represents a “close call,” we nevertheless hold that the informant’s information was not impermissibly “stale.”

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the drug tax stamp statutes violate the Fifth Amendment because the affixed tax stamps is information “independently obtained” and therefore available for use against a dealer who complies with the drug tax laws.

“To begin with, Jones misquotes [State v.] Hall [207 Wis.2d 54]. The actual language reads: ‘the presence of affixed tax stamps is not “information obtained by the Department.”‘… Moreover, we find nothing in the Hall decision suggesting that the court construed the phrase ‘independently obtained’ to mean that tax stamps found on illegal drugs may be used in a criminal proceeding.

“Even though Jones’s argument is based on a misreading of Hall, the question remains whether the legislature sufficiently remedied the compelled self-incrimination flaw identified in Hall. That is, does the new language prohibit the use of tax stamps affixed to illegal drugs against a dealer in a criminal proceeding. … We conclude the legislative amendment achieved that goal.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Marquette County, Wright, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Glover B. Jones, Oregon; Mark D. Richards, Racine

For Respondent: Richard J. Dufour, Montello; Gregory M. Weber, Madison