Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1965 |
| Citation | 138 N.W.2d 260,29 Wis.2d 225 |
| Parties | Janet JACKSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Wayne E. Rowlee, Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Madison, Hugh R. O'Connell, Dist. Atty., Milwaukee County, David E. Leichtfuss, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Milwaukee, for defendant in error.
The issues presented on this writ of error are:
(1) Were defendant's constitutional rights violated by the means used by the police officers to gain admission to arrest her?
(2) Was the arrest valid?
(3) Was there an illegal search and seizure?
(4) Was there sufficient credible evidence to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Means Used to Gain Admission and Validity of Arrest.
The first two issues are so closely interrelated that they will be considered together. The arrest took place about 1 a. m. in the one-room apartment of one William Edwards. This apartment is located in a two-story frame building at 2228 North First street in the city of Milwaukee, and is No. 1A in the first story of the building. The apartment has but one door which is the first one on the right as one enters the central hallway from the outside entrance. The building sits back about 15 feet from the public sidewalk, steps lead up to a porch, and the front entrance is gained from this porch.
Earlier in the evening Detectives Randa and Thelen of the vice-squad of the Milwaukee police department read an entry in the department's daybook. This entry stated:
Shortly before one o'clock these two officers went to 2228 North First street. The front window of Edwards' apartment had an outside storm window. The inside window was raised as was the window shade, and the curtains were parted. By standing on the second step of the stairway leading onto the porch one could look into the room either through a 12 by 2 1/2 or 3 inch vent at the bottom of the storm window or through the glass above. One officer made his observations through both the vent and the glass while the other looked only through the window glass.
The officers observed Edwards clad only in his shorts lying on the bed reading a book. Defendant was clad in a 'shorty' nightgown and was observed first sitting on a couch at the foot of the bed smoking a cigarette and then walking around the room. The officers recognized defendant whom they knew as being on parole as a result of conviction as a narcotics user. On December 4, 1964, the officers had seen defendant in a tavern in the company of Edwards and had warned her to part company with Edwards because he had a criminal record and associating with him might be a violation of her parole.
After observing the conduct of the parties for a few minutes the two officers entered the building through the front entrance and saw the door leading to Edwards' apartment. Randa went back to his observation post on the porch step and Thelen knocked on the apartment door. From his observation post Randa saw Edwards take off his shorts and get into bed. He testified he then saw defendant turn off the light and also get into bed. Officer Randa then entered the building, conferred with Thelen about no one answering Thelen's knock on the door, returned to the outside, and knocked on the window. He then saw Edwards turn on the light, put on pants, galoshes, a suit coat and overcoat, possibly a hat, and go to the apartment door. When Edwards opened the door he was told he was under arrest for encouraging violation of defendant's parole. 1
The officers entered the room and saw defendant standing in her nightgown and first declared she was under arrest for parole violation. 2 Fresh needlemarks were observed on both her forearms and Randa said to her, He questioned her about use of narcotics and she admitted she had used heroin the preceding afternoon, December 14th. She stated that one Colden Hanks had then brought three packages of heroin to the apartment and Edwards, Hanks and she had injected the heroin into their arms with a hypodermic needle. The officers then placed both her and Edwards under arrest for illegal use of heroin.
Upon these facts we determine that there was no violation of defendant's constitutional rights in either the observations made by the two officers preceding the arrest for illegal use of heroin or in the arrest itself without a warrant. As laid down in Browne v. State 3 the test to be applied to such police conduct is one of reasonableness.
The department log book entry of information supplied by officer Gumm justified these two officers in going to the premises at 2228 North First street. This entry apprised them of the location of Edwards' apartment in the building so that they knew that the window through which they looked from the step of the porch was that of his apartment. In making their observations through the window they did not invade any portion of the premises leased to Edwards. What they saw at once disclosed conduct on the part of Edwards which was a breach of the criminal laws of the state, viz., encouraging defendant to violate her parole. This justified the knocking on the door and the placing of Edwards under arrest when he opened the door.
The act of the officers in stepping into the room through the open door after placing Edwards under arrest was conduct incidental to the arrest. Their observation of the fresh needle marks on defendant's forearms and their questioning her about them was also reasonable conduct in the line of duty. The admissions then made by defendant justified her arrest for illegal use of narcotics.
Legality of Search and Seizure.
Both Edwards and defendant were placed under arrest for illegal use of heroin before the officers instituted their search of the premises. An open walk-in closet with no doors was in close proximity to where Edwards was standing or sitting when the officers commenced their search. Edwards stated, 'Don't bother searching, I know what you really came here for, the gun,'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Verhasselt
...on the admission or confessions of the accused alone. Triplett v. State, supra, 65 Wis.2d 371, 372, 222 N.W.2d 689; Jackson v. State, 29 Wis.2d 225, 138 N.W.2d 260 (1965); see also: Barth v. State, 26 Wis.2d 466, 132 N.W.2d 578 ". . . However, as to the need for corroborating evidence, all ......
-
Leroux v. State
...may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises within his immediate presence or control. Jackson v. State (1965), 29 Wis.2d 225, 138 N.W.2d 260; Browne v. State, supra; State v. Phillips, supra; State v. Cox (1950), 258 Wis. 162, 45 N.W.2d 100; United States v. Rab......
-
State v. Fry
...v. Cox, 258 Wis. 162, 171, 45 N.W.2d 100 (1950); Browne v. State, 24 Wis.2d 491, 504-06, 129 N.W.2d 175 (1964); Jackson v. State, 29 Wis.2d 225, 230-31, 138 N.W.2d 260 (1965). Our construction of sec. 968.11, Stats., is influenced by the fact that the statute is unconstitutional if construe......
-
Bies v. State
...view that what is otherwise reasonable police conduct becomes unreasonable if it involves a civil trespass.7 In Jackson v. State, 29 Wis.2d 225, 227-230, 138 N.W.2d 260 (1965), it was held that the police had acted reasonably when, based upon an entry in the police department daybook to the......