Search and Seizure — strip searches — exclusionary rule

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Search and Seizure — strip searches — exclusionary rule

Suppression of evidence is not a remedy for a violation of sec. 968.255.

“Firstly, this statute, unlike the statute in Popenhagen, enumerates specific remedies for its violation: (1) a $1000 fine or imprisonment, WIS. STAT. §968.255(4), and (2) civil damages or injunctive relief. Thus, unlike in Popenhagen, here there is no evidence that the legislature contemplated any remedies ‘similar in nature’ to a motion to suppress. Secondly, allowing such a motion would not be germane to the objectives of the statute. This is a regulatory statute aimed at controlling law enforcement officers’ conduct via criminal penalties. It does not mention probable cause and authorizes no motions to quash or limit the search. So, while, in other cases, a suppression motion might be an appropriate remedy for a violation of the law that took place during a strip search — if, for instance, there was no probable cause for the search — where, as here, there was concededly no violation of any constitutional right but merely of the statute itself, the violation of the statute provides no basis for a suppression motion. See also Jenkins v. State, 978 So. 2d 116, 128-30 (Fla. 2008) (holding that absent constitutional violation, where the strip search statute did not expressly authorize suppression as a remedy, suppression was not a remedy).”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP634-CR State v. Minett

Dist. II, Walworth County, Carlson, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Silver, Maayan, Milwaukee; For Respondent: Moeller, Marguerite M., Madison; Necci, Daniel A., Elkhorn