State v. DeSmidt
Decision Date | 10 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 88-1356-CR,88-1356-CR |
Citation | 454 N.W.2d 780,155 Wis.2d 119 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent-Petitioner, v. Woodrow A. DeSMIDT, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Barry M. Levenson, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, with whom was Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., on brief, for plaintiff-appellant-cross respondent-petitioner.
Steven L. Miller, argued and Zuidmulder, Gazeley & Appel, S.C., Green Bay, for defendant-respondent-cross appellant.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals, State v. DeSmidt, 151 Wis.2d 324, 444 N.W.2d 420 (Ct.App.1989), which affirmed the order of the circuit court for Brown county, the Honorable John P. Hoffmann, Judge, suppressing all evidence, except Medicaid provider handbooks, seized in a warrant-authorized search of
Dr. DeSmidt's dental offices. The first question is whether the search of Dr. DeSmidt's dental offices and seizure of his dental and business records violated either Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution or the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. If the search and seizure was constitutionally infirm, the second question is whether this court should adopt the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule established by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). We conclude the search and seizure was constitutional and reverse. We therefore do not reach the Leon issue.
Dr. DeSmidt terminated Ms. Berger's employment.
A search warrant was issued on September 25, 1985, by the circuit court for Brown county, the Honorable Alexander R. Grant, Judge. The warrant authorized the search for and seizure of the following items:
Patient charts and dental records, recording, among other things, services actually performed, dates of service; x-ray negatives in envelopes attached to the individual patient dental records; business records including but not limited to, appointment book or books, copies of patient statements, receipt book or books, fee schedule, ledgers, daily business summaries, remittance forms; Medicaid provider handbooks.
On September 25, 1985, Investigator Isely and three other Wisconsin Department of Justice agents entered Dr. DeSmidt's dental offices in Green Bay to execute the search warrant. Dr. DeSmidt was served with a copy of the search warrant, but not a copy of the affidavit. The search lasted approximately two hours and ten minutes. Investigator Isely directed the agents to seize all business records and all patient files dated from 1979. While the other agents were conducting the search, Investigator Isely questioned Dr. DeSmidt in his office. The questioning ceased after approximately one hour when Dr. DeSmidt asked to speak to an attorney. The agents seized twenty-two boxes of materials, including all "active patient" files, financial records, accounting ledgers, business and personal bank statements, appointment books, day sheets recording the daily work performed, and payroll and expense check stubs. Dr. DeSmidt was allowed to retain blank business checks and to photocopy the charts of those patients expected in the next day as well as several days of the appointment book. Investigator Isely and the agents transported the materials to their offices in Madison.
In an amended complaint filed on July 3, 1986, the State charged Dr. DeSmidt with nine counts of medical assistance fraud, in violation of sec. 49.49(1)(a), Stats. (1983-84), and four counts of insurance fraud, in violation of sec. 943.395, Stats. (1983-84). A preliminary examination was held and on January 23, 1987, the circuit court bound Dr. DeSmidt over for trial. On February 23, 1987, the State filed an information against Dr. DeSmidt charging eleven counts of medical assistance fraud, in violation of sec. 49.49(1)(a).
On March 31, 1987, Dr. DeSmidt moved to suppress all evidence seized during the search of his offices, alleging the search and seizure violated Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution because the warrant was issued without probable cause, the warrant was not sufficiently particular in describing the items to be seized, and the execution of the search was overbroad. On March 1, 1988, the circuit court issued a memorandum decision holding that the warrant was not sufficiently particular, except for the description of Medicaid provider handbooks. The circuit court also found that there was not probable cause to support seizing all of Dr. DeSmidt's records. On May 31, 1988, the circuit court entered an order suppressing all evidence obtained in the search, with the exception of the Medicaid provider handbooks.
The State appealed the circuit court's order pursuant to sec. 974.05(1)(d)2, Stats. (1983-84). A majority of the court of appeals concluded that the warrant described the items to be seized, which amounted to all of Dr. DeSmidt's dental and business records, with sufficient particularity.
DeSmidt, 151 Wis.2d at 330, 444 N.W.2d 420. The majority held, however, that there was not probable cause to support seizing all of Dr. DeSmidt's records. Id. at 333, 444 N.W.2d 420. The dissent in the court of appeals, noting that the affidavit made reference to Ms. Berger's allegations that filing false claim forms was a "common practice" and "done routinely" at Dr.
DeSmidt's offices, disagreed that probable cause to support seizing all of Dr.
DeSmidt's records was lacking. Id. at 341-42, 444 N.W.2d 420 (Myse, J., dissenting). The dissent reasoned:
[Ms. Berger's] allegations clearly indicate that a pattern of fraudulent practice existed in the office at the time Berger started her employment. [Because she was not aware of the exact date this practice commenced], it was necessary for the state to obtain sufficient records to demonstrate the difference between the amounts billed depending on the method of payment and the way claims were processed in order to prove the alleged fraudulent practice. Because no accurate starting date of this practice was available to the state, they were unable to limit the seizure of records to a specific time period.
The State petitioned this court for review, which was granted. We conclude that because there was probable cause to believe Dr. DeSmidt's dental practice was "permeated with fraud," the search for and seizure of all of Dr. DeSmidt's dental and business records was reasonable and therefore constitutional, and accordingly we reverse.
As this court has previously recognized, Art. I, Sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution are substantially the same. See State v. Anderson, 138 Wis.2d 451, 461, 406 N.W.2d 398 (1987); State v. Fry, 131 Wis.2d 153, 172, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989, 107 S.Ct. 583, 93 L.Ed.2d 586 (1986). Art. I, Sec. 11 provides:
Searches and seizures ... The right of the people to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Meyer
...appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment's strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant.' " State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis.2d 119, 133, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990) (quoting Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733, 104 S.Ct. 2085, 2088, 80 L.Ed.2d 721 (1984)). The factual scenari......
-
State v. Lacount
...scope of the search warrant by seizing records of GP & L's clients other than those specifically named in the warrant is without merit. The DeSmidt decision especially helpful on the issue relating to whether the police exceeded the scope of the search warrant. State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis.2d ......
-
State v. Eason
... ... State, 180 Wis. 407, 193 N.W. 89 (1923). Id. at ¶ 13. The court of appeals acknowledged that if Hoyer is to be overruled, only this court could do so. Id. (citing State v. DeSmidt, 151 Wis. 2d 324, 333, 444 N.W.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1989), overruled on other grounds, 155 Wis. 2d 119, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990)). The State petitioned this court for review, which we granted ... II ... [1] ... ¶ 9. In reviewing a motion to ... ...
-
State v. Ward, 97-2008-CR
...to the magistrate's decision. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis.2d 119, 132, 454 N.W.2d 780, 785-86 (1990). "Although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of......
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 391. quoting State v. DeSmidt , 155 Wis.2d 119, 131, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). The analysis by the magistrate is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the c......
-
Search and seizure of electronic devices
...is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 391. quoting State v. DeSmidt , 155 Wis.2d 119, 131, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). The analysis by the magistrate is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the c......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 391. quoting State v. DeSmidt , 155 Wis.2d 119, 131, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). The analysis by the magistrate is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the c......
-
Search and Seizure of Electronic Devices
...is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Id. at 391. quoting State v. DeSmidt , 155 Wis.2d 119, 131, 454 N.W.2d 780 (1990). The analysis by the magistrate is “simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the c......