State v. Eason
Decision Date | 09 July 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 98-2595-CR.,98-2595-CR. |
Citation | 2001 WI 98,629 N.W.2d 625,245 Wis.2d 206 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. Rayshun D. EASON, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued by Stephen W. Kleinmaier, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the defendant-respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Suzanne Hagopian, assistant state public defender.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Howard B. Eisenberg, Milwaukee, on behalf of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
¶ 1.
This case concerns a no-knock search warrant that authorized police officers to enter an apartment without knocking on the door and announcing their presence. When the police officers executed the search warrant, they found Defendant-Respondent Rayshun D. Eason (Eason) running down a hallway toward the kitchen. After apprehending him, they found a baggie of crack cocaine in the hallway through which Eason had run. The State charged Eason with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Eason moved to suppress the cocaine as evidence. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress and the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208. Both the circuit court and the court of appeals concluded that the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant did not justify authorizing a no-knock entry. This court agrees. Although this is a close case, the evidence presented in the affidavit is not sufficient to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile or inhibit the effective investigation of a crime by allowing for the destruction of evidence.
¶ 2. However, we conclude that the evidence should not be suppressed even though the no-knock portion of the warrant was invalid. Although the exclusionary rule typically operates to exclude evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures — and a search based upon an invalid search warrant is per se unreasonable — there are exceptions. Here, because the police officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon the search warrant, which had been issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, the laudable purpose of the exclusionary rule — deterring police from making illegal searches and seizures — would not be furthered by applying the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we recognize a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
¶ 3. We hold that the good faith exception applies where the State has shown, objectively, that the police officers reasonably relied upon a warrant issued by an independent magistrate. The burden is upon the State to also show that the process used in obtaining the search warrant included a significant investigation and a review by either a police officer trained and knowledgeable in the requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, or a knowledgeable government attorney. We hold that this process is required by Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, in addition to those protections afforded by the good faith exception as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's order suppressing the evidence, and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
¶ 4. On April 27, 1998, City of Beloit Police Officer John Fahrney prepared an affidavit in support of a request for a search warrant with a no-knock entry:
(Fahrney Aff. at 4-7.) Based on the information contained in the affidavit, Rock County Court Commissioner Stephen D. Meyer issued a search warrant, which included authorization for a no-knock entry. The warrant was issued at approximately 2:50 p.m. on April 27, 1998.1
¶ 5. On May 1, 1998, Beloit police officers executed the search warrant at the location specified therein, 802 Bluff Street, Unit B, an apartment in Beloit. The officers executed the search warrant, proceeding into the apartment by breaking the door in. Upon entering the apartment, the officers found Eason, his aunt, Shannon Eason, Clinton Bentley, three other adults and two small children located within the apartment. Officer Fahrney observed Eason and Shannon Eason running out of the living room down a short hallway towards the kitchen. Officers James Kumlien and John McMahon apprehended Eason and Shannon Eason in the kitchen. Officer Kumlien then found cocaine on the floor of the hallway that Eason and Shannon Eason ran through, although he did not see anyone drop or throw the cocaine on the floor.
¶ 6. The State charged Eason with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, while within 1000 feet of a school or park, in violation of Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(1m)(cm)1 and 961.49 (1997-98).2 Eason moved to exclude the evidence of cocaine, claiming that the search violated his rights under the United States and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kramer
...jurisprudence. We did so in regard to our development of a good faith exception under Article I, Section 11. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625 (creating two additional requirements under Article I, Section 11 for law enforcement before according a good faith excepti......
-
State v. Romero
...L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). 5. For a discussion of the good faith exception under Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, see State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶ 3, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. 6. Officer Correa did not, of course, have an opportunity to search Mr. X at any time. 7. Wisco......
-
State v. Arias
...180 Wis. at 412, 193 N.W. 89 (citing Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 41 S.Ct. 266, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921)). State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, represents the only time we have departed from the Supreme Court's construction of the Fourth Amendment in our interpreta......
-
State v. Felix
...at the jail must be suppressed. 19 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 22 This court reviews a motion to suppress under a two-prong analysis. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶ 9, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. “First, we review the circuit court's findings of historical fact, and will uphold them unless......
-
Commentary: Late atty. had huge impact on WI law.
...applies, and the exclusionary rule does not require suppression of evidence obtained without a warrant. The next year, in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, the court adopted a modified version of Leon's good-faith exception, holding that the exclusionary rule does ......
-
WI Court of Appeals rules evidence obtained during pat-down search must be suppressed.
...deciding Kelsey C.R., the Wisconsin Supreme Court has adopted the Leon good-faith rule (with some additional requirements). State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d Having done so, it cannot simultaneously find the pat-down reasonable, and order suppression of evidence gleaned......
-
U.S. Supreme Court: Negligent police conduct does not require evidence's suppression.
...decided in 1984, the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not adopt any good-faith exception for the Fourth Amendment until 2001. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98. Even in Eason, however, the court did not adopt Leon in its entirety, but qualified it by adding a requirement that the state show that the pr......
-
Good faith exception inapplicable, rules Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
...exception has existed in federal courts since 1984, it (or rather a similar exception) has only existed in Wisconsin since State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, and few published cases apply it. Specifically, in Wisconsin, if a search warrant is found to lack probable ......