Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Home / Opinion / Search and Seizure — exclusionary rule

Search and Seizure — exclusionary rule

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Criminal

Search and Seizure — exclusionary rule

Where police had probable cause to arrest before an unlawful entry, a warrantless arrest requires neither the suppression of statements made outside of the home after a suspect was given and waived his Miranda rights, nor the suppression of physical evidence obtained outside of the home.

“The United States Supreme Court reiterated in Harris that ‘[t]he penalties visited upon the Government, and in turn upon the public, because its officers have violated the law must bear some relation to the purposes which the law is to serve.’ 495 U.S. at 17. The Harris rule is based on the Supreme Court’s conclusion that suppressing evidence and statements obtained from a defendant outside of the home following a Payton violation does not further the purpose of the Payton rule: ‘the rule in Payton was designed to protect the physical integrity of the home; it was not intended to grant criminal suspects, like Harris, protection for statements made outside their premises where the police have probable cause to arrest the suspect for committing a crime.’ Id. The Payton rule is vindicated through the suppression of any evidence or statements obtained from the defendant while officers are still inside the defendant’s home unlawfully. Id. at 20. The Fourth Amendment does not require courts to exclude all evidence or forgo prosecuting a defendant following unlawful police conduct, even if doing so might have some deterrent effect. Id. Under the Harris rule, police are sufficiently deterred from violating Payton because ‘the principle incentive to obey Payton still obtains: the police know that a warrantless entry will lead to the suppression of any evidence found, or statements taken, inside the home.’ Id. There is no compelling reason to go further and suppress evidence lawfully obtained from a defendant outside of the home.”

Reversed.

2010AP346-CR State v. Felix

Crooks, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kachinsky, Leonard D., Appleton; For Respondent: Heimerman, Kenneth J., Wausau; Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*