State v. Kraimer
| Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-833-CR,78-833-CR |
| Citation | 99 Wis.2d 306,298 N.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lawrence KRAIMER, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
William Tyroler (argued), Asst. State Public Defender, Richard J. Johnson, Asst. State Public Defender (on brief), for defendant-appellant-petitioner.
David J. Becker (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., (on brief), for plaintiff-respondent.
This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals 1 affirming a judgment of the circuit court for Racine County, JAMES WILBERSHIDE, Circuit Judge, convicting Lawrence Kraimer (defendant) of manslaughter, contrary to sec. 940.05(1), Stats. Prior to trial, the circuit court denied a motion by the defendant to exclude all of the evidence against him in this case on the ground that it was the product of an illegal warrantless entry and a violation of his Miranda rights. The denial of the defendant's suppression motion forms the basis of this appeal.
The first witness called at the suppression hearing was Racine Police Lt. Daniel Elmer who testified that on the morning of Monday, May 15, 1978, he received three anonymous telephone calls at the Racine Police Department at 8:25 a. m., 9:00 a. m., and 9:20 a. m. Elmer later identified Kraimer's voice as that of the caller. 2 During the course of these phone conversations, the defendant told Elmer that he had shot and believed he had killed his wife four days earlier; that his wife's body was in an upstairs bedroom near a bathroom and that he had his four children at home with him, who ranged in age from a 12-year old male to a two-year old female. Elmer testified that the defendant stated that he was very upset and wanted to get the matter resolved as he could not live in a house with his wife lying dead upstairs. Thereupon, Lt. Elmer arranged to meet Kraimer at a downtown restaurant, but Kraimer failed to appear.
Although Kraimer failed to show at the prearranged meeting place, Elmer, impressed with the sincerity of the caller, referred the matter to the Detective Bureau for immediate inquiry because of the possibility that a crime had been committed and the risk of danger presented to the children by the caller's emotional state. With the information gained from the phone conversations, the Detective Bureau contacted 12 local grade schools and requested the names of all of their absent 12-year old male students with three younger siblings in the family, two of whom might also be of school age, but absent from school that day. This investigation by the Racine Police Department revealed that the Kraimer family was one of three families with three school age children absent that date. The police checked out the other two residences and finding nothing suspicious centered their investigation on the Kraimer home.
Detective Gerald Frievault, after being informed that there may have been a homicide at the Kraimer residence, was dispatched to check out the welfare of the defendant's children and to determine if there was any connection between the anonymous phone calls and the Kraimer home. He arrived at the defendant's residence between 1:00 and 1:30 p. m., and knocked on the front door but received no response. He then attempted to inquire of the neighbors on either side of the defendant's house, but was unable to find anyone at home. Frievault returned to the Kraimer residence and upon further investigation observed that a windowpane was missing from the back door. Although there was no sign of broken glass on the floor inside the house, Frievault became suspicious and believed that the broken pane indicated a possible burglary. He shouted into the windowpane opening, identifying himself as a police officer, and upon receiving no reply, left the scene and drove to a call box to request assistance. Upon his return to the Kraimer home, while waiting for assistance, Frievault talked with one of the neighbors and was advised that the neighbor had seen the Kraimer children playing in the yard over the weekend and expressed no concern about their welfare. At this point, he became suspicious as the school authorities had informed the police that Kraimer had called saying that his children were on a vacation. Frievault testified that at this time there was no way for him to know whether there was a homicide at the defendant's home, where the children were, and further, he was uncertain whether he was investigating a prank call, a burglary or a homicide.
Approximately five minutes thereafter, assistance arrived and Sgt. Robert Holton and Frievault went to the back door and yelled into the house through the open windowpane and again failed to receive a response. The officers' failure to rouse the occupants and the fact that entry into the home could be gained by reaching through the broken windowpane and turning the doorknob made them suspicious of a burglary and persuaded them to go inside to check out the premises. Thus, Frievault and Holton entered the home at this time without a search warrant because of the possibility of a homicide, a burglary or a danger to the children. At the suppression hearing, Frievault stated that his purpose for entering the home was "I was checking for a burglary or whatever this mysterious circumstance was bringing about."
Once inside the home, Frievault testified that he announced their presence and upon receiving no reply, he and Sgt. Holton proceeded to the stairway to the second floor as he was advised that if in fact there was a homicide at this residence, it was likely the woman would be found in the area of the upstairs bathroom. On their way to the stairway, the officers passed through the dining and living rooms and observed a partially eaten pizza, children's shoes on the floor and a television set playing.
Frievault and Holton then ascended the stairs to the second floor and again announced their presence. As they reached the landing between the first and second floors, and hearing footsteps on the first floor, they turned around and came back downstairs. At this time they saw an individual, later identified as Kraimer, sitting on the couch with his children. The defendant spoke first and addressing Sgt. Holton, he said Frievault then inquired whether the defendant was the person who called. Kraimer responded affirmatively and Frievault asked "Where is your wife?" The defendant stated "She's upstairs in the bedroom." Frievault went upstairs and found Mrs. Kraimer on a bed covered with sheets and blankets. He checked for signs of life and determined that she was dead.
Frievault returned to the first floor and informed Holton that Mrs. Kraimer was dead. The defendant spoke and stated, "I suppose you're going to need the gun." Frievault answered "Yes" and Kraimer said Frievault testified that the defendant led the officers to the basement and as the three of them descended the stairs, he advised Kraimer that he was under arrest and informed him of his Miranda rights. In the basement, the defendant pointed to the ceiling tiles at the foot of the stairs and said the gun was behind them. The three men then returned to the first floor and Frievault finished reading the Miranda rights to the defendant as they got to the top of the stairs. Kraimer was asked if he understood his rights and he replied that he did. At this point, Frievault asked Kraimer if he wanted to talk about the incident and the defendant said yes, stating that he wanted "to get the matter over with." Kraimer then handed Frievault some letters and said "they will explain everything." 3 About this time, the defendant also informed Frievault of the location of the unused bullets he had taken from the gun chamber after the shooting. Kraimer then gave statements to the officers and shortly thereafter was conveyed to the police station, where he gave a written confession shortly after his arrival. Subsequently, the body, gun, bullets, letters as well as a pipe that the defendant claimed his wife was brandishing when he shot her, were removed by the police and members of the fire department rescue squad as evidence. 4
At the suppression hearing, the defendant argued that the police officers' initial warrantless entry into the Kraimer home did not come within any of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement 5 and thus, all of the evidence obtained must be suppressed. 6 In addition, Kraimer claimed that since the officers failed to apprise him of his Miranda rights immediately after they ascertained he was the anonymous caller, all of his subsequent statements must be excluded.
The officers, on the other hand, testified that the initial entry was justified because they were confronted with an emergency situation, namely, a possible burglary or homicide and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Kraimer children's absence from school. The state contended that the inquiry as to the location of the defendant's wife was only investigatory at this point in time and thus, the officers were not obliged to inform Kraimer of his Miranda rights before asking this question.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress stating: (1) the police had probable cause to believe a burglary had been committed and upon failing to arouse the occupants, were justified in entering the house, and (2) the question regarding the location of Kraimer's wife was investigatory only, at this time, and thus, the officers were not required to apprise the defendant of his Miranda rights before making this inquiry.
Kraimer was tried for first degree murder and the jury found him guilty of the included crime of manslaughter. The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction on the ground that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The court of appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Samuolis
...that woman had been raped and murdered), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 910, 121 S. Ct. 259, 148 L. Ed. 2d 188 (2000) ; State v. Kraimer , 99 Wis. 2d 306, 328, 298 N.W.2d 568 (1980) (although 911 caller reported that he had shot and killed his wife four days earlier, "the police had no way of knowi......
-
State v. Woods
...711, 312 N.W.2d 795 (1981); Termination of Parental Rights to T.R.M., 100 Wis.2d 681, 688, 303 N.W.2d 581 (1981); State v. Kramer, 99 Wis.2d 306, 316, 298 N.W.2d 568 (1980); Walker v. Walker, 40 Wis.2d 313, 319, 161 N.W.2d 898 (1968). The state cites the following cases as supporting the pr......
-
State v. Dukes, 13246
... ... 112] 397 A.2d 1062 (1979); State v. Marsh, 162 N.J. Super. 290, 301, 392 A.2d 672 (1978), aff'd, 168 N.J. Super. 352, 403 A.2d 28 (1979); People v. Lopez, 118 App.Div.2d 873, 875, 500 N.Y.S.2d 359 (1986); State v. Spratt, 386 A.2d 1094, 1095 (R.I.1978); State v. Kraimer, 91 Wis.2d 418, 283 N.W.2d 438 (1979), aff'd, 99 Wis.2d 306, 298 N.W.2d ... 568 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 973, 101 S.Ct. 2053, 68 L.Ed.2d 353 (1981) ... In our system of federalism, it is established that state constitutions may be a source of "individual liberties more ... ...
-
State v. West
...Therefore we make our own independent determination on that issue based upon the evidence in the record. See, State v. Kraimer, 99 Wis.2d 306, 318, 298 N.W.2d 568 (1980); State v. Turner, 136 Wis.2d 333, 344, 401 N.W.2d 827 (1987). We conclude from the "totality of circumstances" that Ms. W......