State v. Kerr
| Decision Date | 06 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 2016AP2455-CR,2016AP2455-CR |
| Citation | 913 N.W.2d 787,383 Wis.2d 306,2018 WI 87 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher John KERR, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-appellant, there were briefs by Misha Tseytlin, solicitor general, with whom on the briefs were Brad D. Schimel, attorney general, and Amy C. Miller, assistant solicitor general. There was an oral argument by Misha Tseytlin, solicitor general.
For the defendant-respondent, there was a brief filed by Linda I. Coleman, John R. Carlson, and Sears, Carlson & Coleman, S.C., Washburn. There was an oral argument by John R. Carlson.
¶ 1 This is a review of the Bayfield County circuit court's order granting Christopher John Kerr's ("Kerr") motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search incident to arrest on the basis that " ‘judicial integrity’ is vital enough to justify exclusion of evidence when the issuing court's arrest warrant was invalid ab initio."1 We reverse.
¶ 2 On September 27, 2015, two officers were dispatched to follow up on a 9-1-1 hang-up call from Kerr's residence. En route, they were advised by dispatch that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Kerr in Ashland County. When the officers arrived at Kerr's residence, they discovered that the 9-1-1 call was in error, but arrested Kerr pursuant to the arrest warrant. In conducting a search incident to arrest, the officers discovered methamphetamine in Kerr's pants pocket. The State subsequently charged Kerr with one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(g) (2015-16).2
¶ 3 Kerr filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search incident to arrest. He argued that, while a warrant had been issued, and law enforcement did not engage in any misconduct in executing the warrant, his constitutional rights were nonetheless violated because he was jailed without the issuing court first inquiring as to his ability to pay, without being given notice that his ability to pay is at issue, and without a meaningful opportunity to be heard. He argued that the warrant would not have been issued, and he would not have been arrested or searched incident to arrest, if he had been afforded due process in the forfeiture action.3
¶ 4 After extensive briefing and three hearings, the reviewing court granted Kerr's motion to suppress. It concluded that, although "[t]here is no question that the [issuing court], as a court of general jurisdiction, has the constitutional and statutory authority to hear and process municipal citations," the warrant was "not in compliance with the statutory requirements and clearly violated defendant's statutory due process rights." The reviewing court then concluded that suppression under the exclusionary rule was proper based on the "Wisconsin rule that ‘judicial integrity’ is vital enough to justify exclusion of evidence when the issuing court's arrest warrant was invalid ab initio." In so concluding, the reviewing court referenced the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule and how "[h]ere the conduct is not isolated and may be the rule, not the exception.
Dete[r]rence certainly is a greater consideration under these facts."
¶ 5 The State sought interlocutory review and filed a petition to bypass the court of appeals, seeking immediate review from this court. We granted the State's petition to bypass.
¶ 6 Our overarching inquiry in this case is whether the reviewing court erred in granting Kerr's motion to suppress. Fundamental to our analysis is whether evidence discovered during a search incident to arrest is properly suppressed under the exclusionary rule when there is no police misconduct. We conclude that suppression is not appropriate because the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, and there is no police misconduct here. Neither judicial integrity nor judicial error is a standalone basis for suppression under the exclusionary rule.4 We therefore conclude that the reviewing court's grant of Kerr's motion to suppress on the basis of judicial integrity is error.
¶ 7 Accordingly, we reverse the Bayfield County circuit court.
¶ 8 A certified copy of the record for City of Ashland v. Kerr, No. 2015FO219, is included in the record before us, but it is particularly lean. This record reflects that, on June 16, 2015, Kerr was mailed a citation for disorderly conduct, in violation of City of Ashland ordinance 201.03.5 This citation notified Kerr to appear, if he so chose, at 10:00 a.m. on July 21, 2015.6 This record also reflects that, on July 21, 2015, when Kerr failed to appear, the issuing court entered a default judgment in the amount of $263.50 with 60 days to pay, and that on July 31, 2015, the clerk sent notice of the default judgment to Kerr (although neither the judgment nor the notice is in the record).7 On September 22, 2015, 60 days after default judgment was entered, the court issued a commitment order/arrest warrant8 for Kerr to "detain [him] in custody for 90 days or until $298.50 [9 ] is paid, or until the person is discharged by due course of law." This warrant was issued on the basis that "[t]he balance due has not been paid within the period ordered by the court."
¶ 9 On September 27, 2015, around midnight, 9-1-1 received a call from a phone number later-identified as Kerr's. When the 9-1-1 operator picked up the call, there was a female yelling, but the operator did not have the opportunity to discover the nature of her distress before the line went dead. When the operator called back, a male answered the phone and the operator heard him say "shut the fuck up." When the operator asked whom the male had been talking to, he responded that he was talking to his cat. He denied that there was a female there and said that there was no problem and that the call had been made by accident.
¶ 10 The operator ran the number and discovered it was registered to Kerr and that Kerr had an active arrest warrant in Ashland County. The operator then dispatched Officer Matt Ladwig of the City of Bayfield Police Department and Deputy Matt Leino of the Bayfield County Sheriff's Department to Kerr's residence to follow up on the 9-1-1 call, advising them both that Kerr had a warrant for his arrest in Ashland County. When they arrived, they spoke with Kerr and his girlfriend, R.E., and determined that, although the two had had an argument, the 9-1-1 call was an accidental dial. Officer Ladwig then informed Kerr that there was a warrant for his arrest in Ashland County for an unpaid judgment in the amount of $298.50 and placed Kerr under arrest. He conducted a search incident to arrest and discovered a plastic bag containing a white-colored rock in Kerr's pants pocket, which, after testing, was revealed to be methamphetamine.
¶ 11 On October 7, 2015, the State filed its criminal complaint, charging one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(g).10
¶ 12 On June 8, 2016, prior to trial, Kerr filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine discovered during the search incident to his arrest.11 The crux of Kerr's argument is that issuance of the civil municipal arrest warrant violated his due process rights because, contrary to the statutory requirements, "[t]here was no hearing that was noticed to provide [him] an opportunity to be heard on the issue of his ability to pay prior to the issuance of a warrant." Kerr argued that the warrant for this civil municipal ticket never should have been issued, Kerr never should have been arrested, and the methamphetamine never should have been discovered. Therefore, says Kerr, the evidence should be suppressed because it was discovered as a result of an unlawful arrest in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights.
¶ 13 On July 12, 2016, the reviewing circuit court held its first hearing on the motion, at which Officer Ladwig, Deputy Leino, and Kerr all testified. Officer Ladwig and Deputy Leino testified to the facts described above regarding the arrest. They also both testified that they had not attempted to look up the arrest warrant. Kerr testified that he had been unaware of any warrant from Ashland County, and that he had had no hearing about owing any money prior to his arrest on September 27, 2015.
¶ 14 On September 6, 2016, after further briefing, the reviewing court held its second hearing on the motion, hearing arguments from the parties. Kerr argued that the arrest warrant was facially invalid because, regardless of the statutory basis, the statutory procedures were not followed: defendants cannot be arrested and incarcerated for being poor—there must be some showing of ability to pay. The State argued that exclusion was improper because there was no police misconduct; officers should be able to rely on dispatch—they cannot be the arbiters of whether a court had authority to issue a warrant because they are never in a position to question a court order. The State further argued that, where a warrant is defective but there is no police misconduct, the proper remedy is either a writ of habeas corpus or a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After hearing these arguments, the reviewing court ordered further briefing on the issue of whether a circuit court has competency to proceed as a municipal court pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 66.0114, 800.09, and 800.095.
¶ 15 On October 5, 2016, the reviewing court held its third hearing on the motion, hearing argument from the parties on that issue. Kerr argued that a circuit court could proceed under Wis. Stat. ch. 800, but that, even if this is what the issuing court had done, it still had not adhered to the procedural requirements, and a police officer cannot reasonably rely on a warrant that has no statutory basis. The State informed the reviewing court that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burch
...the "assumption that there was a Fourth Amendment violation" and analyzing whether the exclusionary rule applied); see also State v. Kerr, 2018 WI 87, ¶¶20-24, 383 Wis. 2d 306, 913 N.W.2d 787.1. The Exclusionary Rule¶16 "When there has been an unlawful search, a common judicial remedy for t......
-
State v. Prado
...Schultz v. Natwick, 2002 WI 125, ¶37, 257 Wis. 2d 19, 653 N.W.2d 266.¶68 Just three years ago, a majority of this court in State v. Kerr, 2018 WI 87, ¶6, 383 Wis. 2d 306, 913 N.W.2d 787, circumscribed the breadth of the exclusionary rule, emphasizing that police misconduct is the essence of......
-
State v. Prado
... ... Krull , 480 U.S. 340, 347, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987) ; see also Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135, 141-43, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) ; State v. Kerr , 2018 WI 87, 21, 383 Wis. 2d 306, 913 N.W.2d 787, cert. denied , U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 848, 202 L.Ed.2d 615 (2019). 393 Wis.2d 570 70 There are good reasons for courts to ensure that good faith remains the exception, not the rule. Application of the good faith exception allows constitutional ... ...
-
State v. McGinnis
...Wis. 2d 531, ¶12.¶21 Our review of an order granting or denying a motion to suppress presents a question of constitutional fact. State v. Kerr , 2018 WI 87, ¶18, 383 Wis. 2d 306, 913 N.W.2d 787, cert denied , 139 S. Ct. 848 (2019). When we are presented with a question of constitutional fac......