Search and Seizure — Miranda warnings — exclusionary rule

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Search and Seizure — Miranda warnings — exclusionary rule

Although a prison visitor was in custody when questioned without Miranda warnings, physical evidence seized need not be suppressed, where there was no intentional Miranda violation.

“Ezell expresses disbelief that ‘experienced correctional officers would not know that they were required’ to give the warnings, but in fact the officer who testified about the interrogation stated that while he had ‘heard of’ the Miranda warnings, ‘we don’t ever use them.’ Ezell also speculates that the officers had no reason to call police if they were not trying to get Ezell to incriminate herself, but we note that administrative rules require correctional institutions to refer contraband violations to law enforcement. See WIS. ADMIN. CODE § DOC 306.18(8) (Aug. 2014). Once the correctional officers learned from the phone conversation that Ezell was planning to carry in contraband, law enforcement was already going to be involved.”

“On this record, while the correctional officers did make a mistake by not following DOC protocol, it is farfetched to speculate that the correctional officers intentionally violated Miranda. As the administrative rules tell us, custodial interrogation of visitors to the prison is not part of a correctional officer’s job description. Suppressing the contraband would not deter what amounts to negligent violation of Miranda.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP2178-CR State v. Ezell

Dist. II, Winnebago County, Bissell, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Breedlove, Tristan, Madison; For Respondent: Pray, Eileen W., Madison; Gossett, Christian A., Oshkosh