State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v. Snyder, 85-0637
| Decision Date | 24 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-0637,85-0637 |
| Citation | 388 N.W.2d 612,131 Wis.2d 147 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin ex rel. Andrew A. ZDANCZEWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Honorable Harry G. SNYDER, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Daniel P. Fay, argued, for plaintiff-appellant; Law Firm of Daniel P. Fay, S.C., Pewaukee, on brief.
Stephen W. Kleinmaier, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for defendant-respondent; Kenneth R. Berg, Asst. Dist. Atty. and Bronson C. LaFollette, Atty. Gen., on brief; Kenneth R. Berg, Asst.Dist. Atty., on brief.
Andrew Zdanczewicz appeals from an order and judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha county, Judge Willis J. Zick, denying Zdanczewicz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We accepted this case on certification from the court of appeals. In light of our decision in State v. Smith, 131 Wis.2d 220, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986), wherein we held that an illegal arrest does not deny a court personal jurisdiction over a defendant, we affirm the circuit court's order denying Zdanczewicz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
On September 5, 1984, at approximately 2:20 a.m., a New Berlin police officer noticed a motorcycle with a "license applied for" plate attached to it. The officer activated his squad car's red lights and attempted to stop the motorcycle to check its registration. The motorcyclist led the officer on a 9-mile, high-speed chase during which the motorcyclist went through stop signs, a stoplight, and two police roadblocks, at times reaching speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour. The officer, never losing sight of the motorcycle, pursued the motorcyclist to a residence in Muskego where he observed the motorcyclist drive into the garage and enter the attached house.
The officer entered the open garage, waited a couple of minutes for a backup, and knocked on the door to the house. When a woman answered the door, the officer asked if she had any sons. She answered that she had one son who lived at the residence and owned the motorcycle in the garage. When the officer requested that she bring her son to the door, she went to see if he was home. A man then came to the door and identified himself as the owner of the residence. When the officer asked who owned the motorcycle, the man stated that it belonged to his son. The officer then asked him whether his son was home and asked him to bring his son to the door. After waiting at the door for approximately five or ten minutes, the officer entered the house, found Andrew Zdanczewicz, and arrested him for eluding an officer.
Zdanczewicz subsequently was charged with fleeing from an officer in violation of sec. 346.04(3), Stats. He posted a $1,000 property bail bond and was released. Immediately thereafter, he challenged the personal jurisdiction of the circuit court, bringing a motion to dismiss based upon his assertion that the warrantless, nighttime home arrest violated his constitutional rights. After holding a hearing, Judge Harry G. Snyder denied the motion on the grounds that the officer's hot pursuit of Zdanczewicz was an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless arrest.
Zdanczewicz then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in another branch of the circuit court for Waukesha county, Judge Willis J. Zick, presiding. In his habeas corpus petition, Zdanczewicz alleged that he was restrained of his liberty by Judge Snyder, that he was imprisoned by virtue of being placed on bail, and that he was not imprisoned by virtue of any valid judgment or order or execution as specified in Chapter 782, Stats. He claimed that he was imprisoned illegally because he had been arrested illegally. The state challenged the propriety of Zdanczewicz's habeas corpus petition, arguing that his remedy should be to the appellate court and not to the circuit court.
Judge Zick, citing J.V. v. Barron, 112 Wis.2d 256, 332 N.W.2d 796 (1983), rejected the state's argument that a circuit court does not have authority to review the actions of a coordinate branch of the circuit court in habeas corpus. Judge Zick, however, also rejected Zdanczewicz's arguments, holding that the warrantless home arrest complied with the fourth amendment because it was based upon both probable cause and the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit. Accordingly, Judge Zick issued an order and judgment denying Zdanczewicz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Zdanczewicz appealed the order and judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court of appeals certified the appeal to this court on the question "[w]hether 'hot pursuit' is always a sufficient exigent circumstance to justify a warrantless entry into a home to effect an arrest for a misdemeanor traffic offense." While we accepted certification to decide that question, the procedural posture of this case makes a decision on that question inappropriate in light of our holding in State v. Smith, supra.
Zdanczewicz argues that the police violated his fourth amendment rights in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moats
...could not therefore adversely affect the court's jurisdiction at a later stage of the proceeding. In State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v. Snyder, 131 Wis.2d 147, 152, 388 N.W.2d 612 (1986), the court held that the existence of a valid complaint supported by probable cause defeated any claim by the ......
-
State ex rel. Coleman v. McCaughtry
...commences a civil proceeding wherein the petitioner claims an illegal denial of his or her liberty. State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v. Snyder, 131 Wis.2d 147, 151, 388 N.W.2d 612 (1986). A habeas petition must contain a statement of the legal issues and a sufficient statement of facts that bear o......
-
State ex rel. Lopez-Quintero v. Dittmann
...is to protect and vindicate the petitioner's right to be free from illegal restraint." Id.; see also State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v. Snyder, 131 Wis. 2d 147, 151, 388 N.W.2d 612 (1986). "Its function is to provide a prompt and effective judicial remedy to those who are illegally restrained of ......
-
State v. Webb
...or at the preliminary hearing indicates that the crime was committed outside the State of Wisconsin. See State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v. Snyder, 131 Wis.2d 147, 151, 388 N.W.2d 612 (1986).Because we do not anticipate that our decision will open any "floodgates," does not mean, as the dissent s......