State v. Collins, 84-1846-CR

Decision Date19 October 1984
Docket NumberNo. 84-1846-CR,84-1846-CR
Citation122 Wis.2d 320,363 N.W.2d 229
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samatra COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtWisconsin Court of Appeals

Louis B. Butler, Jr., Asst. State Public Defender, Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.

Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent; Jerome S. Schmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, of counsel.

Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., and MOSER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

WEDEMEYER, Presiding Judge.

Samatra Collins appeals from a conviction of burglary, party to the crime, contrary to secs. 943.10(1)(a) and 939.05, Stats. He contends that because he was arrested in his home by officers who gained entry through use of an invalid warrant, the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over him and the charges should therefore be dismissed. He also contends that his confession to burglary should be suppressed because it was the fruit of the unlawful arrest and because it was taken in violation of his right to have counsel present at the interrogation. We hold that the charges need not be dismissed, because the arresting officers entered Collins' home in objectively reasonable reliance on an arrest warrant which they only later discovered was invalid. We further hold that Collins' statement must be suppressed because it was taken in the absence of counsel after Collins invoked his right to have counsel present. We therefore reverse Collins' conviction and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On January 20, 1983, two men confessed to having committed several burglaries and one implicated Collins as an accomplice. The investigating officer had a teletype sent that Collins was wanted for burglary, and an entry was made into the police department's NCIC (National Crime Information Center) computer system that a "temporary felony want" 1 was out for Collins. On the morning of January 21, 1983, Officer Bayer learned that Collins was wanted for burglary. He called the police department's Detective Clerical Division and was told that the sheriff's department had a speeding warrant for Collins. 2 Bayer went to Collins' home, intending to arrest him on the traffic warrant and to question him about the burglaries.

When Bayer arrived at Collins' home, Collins' mother answered the door. Bayer told her he was there to arrest Collins on the traffic warrant, and Mrs. Collins let him in. 3 When Collins entered the room, Bayer said he was there to arrest him on the warrant. Collins said he had paid the warrant. Bayer used the Collinses' telephone to call the Detective Clerical Division to check the warrant. He found that there was no warrant, but was told that Collins was wanted on a "temporary warrant" for burglary and that there was probable cause to arrest him. 4 Bayer then placed Collins under arrest.

The record is somewhat unclear as to precisely what occurred next. Collins testified he told Bayer he wanted to talk to his attorney, David Sweet. Bayer also testified that Collins asked to call his attorney. Bayer later testified that it was Mrs. Collins who mentioned the attorney. Bayer telephoned Sweet's office but could not reach him. He left a message saying that he was taking Collins into custody and gave a number where Sweet could contact his superior officer. Collins knew that Bayer was making the call and that Sweet was unavailable.

When Collins arrived at the police station, he telephoned his mother to see whether Sweet had called. Sweet had not, and Mrs. Collins promised to try his office again. Sweet telephoned the police station between 3:50 and 4:10 p.m. The officer he spoke to would not allow him to speak to Collins and refused to tell Collins he had called. The officer said if Sweet were to come down to the station he would not be allowed to see Collins unless Collins asked for him. Collins testified he would have wanted to talk to Sweet had he known Sweet had called.

After Bayer conveyed Collins to the police station, he turned him over to Officers Jones and Jordan for interrogation. He did not tell them he had talked to Collins about the burglaries or that he had called Collins' attorney. Jones and Jordan began questioning Collins shortly after 4:00 p.m. The officers' testimony and Collins' testimony conflict as to whether, after receiving Miranda warnings, Collins asked again to talk to his attorney. The trial court found that he did not. Collins eventually confessed to several burglaries.

Collins moved to dismiss the charges and to suppress his statements. He argued that his arrest violated the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 1, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. He also argued that the statements were the fruit of the illegal arrest and that they were taken in violation of his rights under the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court denied the motions. Regarding the arrest, it held that Bayer used no subterfuge to gain entry to Collins' home and that his actions were reasonable. Regarding the statements, it held that Collins had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and that the statements were voluntary.

ARREST

It is undisputed that there was no outstanding warrant for Collins' arrest at the time Bayer entered Collins' home to arrest him. The state does not argue that exigent circumstances or consent justified the entry. The United States Supreme Court held in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1374, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), that the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution "prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest." Similarly, in Laasch v. State, 84 Wis.2d 587, 595-96, 267 N.W.2d 278, 283-84 (1978), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that "absent exigent circumstances, the entry of one's dwelling without consent to effect a warrantless felony arrest on probable cause, is unlawful" under art. 1, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the fourth amendment. Collins' arrest therefore was unlawful under both the federal and the Wisconsin constitutions.

In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), evidence was seized by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant which was ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in that situation. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3416, 82 L.Ed.2d at 692. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct and encourage adherence by the law-enforcement profession to fourth amendment standards, and that the rule could not be expected to deter objectively reasonable law-enforcement activity. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3420, 82 L.Ed.2d at 696. The Court concluded that the "substantial costs" of applying the rule--inhibition of the truth-finding functions of the judge and jury, allowing guilty defendants to escape punishment, and generating disrespect for the law, id. at ---- - ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3412-13, 82 L.Ed.2d at 688-89--were not justified by the marginal or nonexistent benefits that applying the rule would secure. Id. at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 3421, 82 L.Ed.2d at 698.

We think the same rationale is applicable to confessions made as a result of an arrest where the officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on an arrest warrant which is later determined to be invalid. The social costs, in terms of inhibition of the fact finder and windfalls to guilty defendants, are high, and the "benefits"--deterrence of officers' reasonable reliance on apparently valid warrants--are minimal.

The present case differs from Leon in that the warrant here was invalid because it had already been executed, not because it was unsupported by probable cause. This distinction is insignificant, however, because any reasonable officer in Bayer's position would have believed a warrant existed which authorized entry. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that an officer need not have an arrest warrant in his or her possession in order to make a valid arrest. The officer may rely on information received through police department channels that a warrant exists. Schill v. State, 50 Wis.2d 473, 477, 184 N.W.2d 858, 860, cert. denied, 404 U.S. 965, 92 S.Ct. 336, 30 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971); sec. 968.07(1)(b), Stats. Suppressing evidence obtained in a situation where a reasonable officer would believe an arrest warrant existed would not help to deter misconduct by arresting officers, because there is no misconduct to deter.

Any deterrent effect produced would operate only on those persons responsible for keeping police department files up to date. The link between a negligent failure to remove an executed warrant from the files, and the eventual suppression of evidence of a different offense obtained through an erroneous rearrest on the old warrant, is an attenuated one, however. We think the link is too attenuated for suppression of the evidence to encourage timely purging of files. Application of the exclusionary rule here would not serve the purpose for which it was created. Collins' confession need not be suppressed even though he was arrested in his home without a valid warrant.

We turn now to the question of dismissal of the charges. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has stated that the trial court's personal jurisdiction over a criminal defendant "is dependent upon the defendant's physical presence before the court pursuant to a properly issued warrant, a lawful arrest or a voluntary appearance." Walberg v. State, 73 Wis.2d 448, 457-58, 243 N.W.2d 190, 195 (1976) (footnote omitted). An unlawful arrest resulting from a defective arrest warrant deprives the court of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. State v. Monje, 109 Wis.2d 138, 145, 325 N.W.2d 695, 699 (1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Hambly
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • February 7, 2008
    ...counsel any time the suspect is in custody, even before Miranda warnings or the onset of questioning.28 State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 363 N.W.2d 229 (Ct.App.1984), may be read as adopting such a ¶ 31 Collins requested counsel immediately after he was arrested at 2:35 p.m. at his home. H......
  • State v. Ward, 97-2008-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • October 8, 1998
    ...presence of such a statement would produce a different result. See n.3, above.9 In another opinion of this court, State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 363 N.W.2d 229 (Ct.App.1984), we relied on the rationale of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984) in concluding that, even......
  • State v. Subdiaz-Osorio
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 24, 2014
    ...was information sufficient to support an arrest warrant, but that no arrest warrant had yet been issued.” State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 322 n. 1, 363 N.W.2d 229 (Ct.App.1984). 9. CIB is part of the Wisconsin Department of Justice's Division of Law Enforcement Services. Crime Information......
  • State Of Wis. v. Robinson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 15, 2010
    ...Robinson was subject to an outstanding felony arrest warrant for manufacturing or delivering marijuana. Citing State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 326, 363 N.W.2d 229 (1984), the circuit court concluded that the evidence should not be suppressed because the officers believed they had a valid ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Wisconsin defendant's confession properly admitted.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2008, January 2008
    • February 18, 2008
    ...grounds, as in this case. In addition, such an assumption should not change current law enforcement practices. In State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 363 N.W.2d 229 (Ct.App.1984), the Court of Appeals suggested that a suspect may effectively invoke his Miranda rights at any time he is in Give......
  • U.S. Supreme Court: Negligent police conduct does not require evidence's suppression.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Law Journal No. 2009, November 2009
    • January 26, 2009
    ...decided, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Herring's case. State v. Collins, 122 Wis.2d 320, 363 N.W.2d 229 The court in Collins wrote, The officer may rely on information received through police department channels that a warrant ex......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT