State v. Lecker
| Decision Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2019AP1532-CR |
| Citation | 2020 WI App 65,950 N.W.2d 910,394 Wis.2d 285 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathaniel R. LECKER, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general, and Winn S. Collins, assistant attorney general.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Michael Covey of Covey Law Office, Madison.
Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.
¶1 Wisconsin law grants immunity from criminal prosecution for certain offenses to "aiders"—i.e., people who attempt to obtain assistance for individuals who are suffering from an overdose or adverse reaction to a controlled substance. See WIS. STAT. § 961.443(2)(a) (2017-18).1 The crimes subject to the grant of immunity are specifically identified by the statute, which also states that the immunity attaches only when those crimes were "under the circumstances surrounding or leading to [the aider's] commission" of the act or acts constituting the rendering of aid. Id.
¶2 When an individual suffering from a heroin overdose appeared outside of Nathaniel Lecker's apartment one afternoon, Lecker obtained medical assistance for him. The next day, Lecker was interviewed by police investigators about the overdose. During the interview, Lecker informed police that there was drug paraphernalia in his apartment, and he consented to a search of the premises. Lecker was charged with various drug-related possession offenses as a result of contraband found during the search, none of which was related to the overdose. Nonetheless, the circuit court granted Lecker's motion to dismiss the charges against him, finding that there was a "sufficient nexus" between his seeking aid for the overdosing individual and the discovery of the contraband to warrant dismissal on immunity grounds.
¶3 We conclude the circuit court erred by dismissing the charges. As an initial matter, one of the charges dismissed by the court was not a crime for which Lecker could receive immunity under WIS. STAT. § 961.443(2)(a). As to the remaining crimes, Lecker's possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and the discovery of those items of contraband were not closely connected to the overdose or to Lecker's attempt to obtain aid. Furthermore, the mere fact that Lecker provided information about the contraband and consent to search his apartment during a subsequent police interview occasioned by his assistance does not cause his commission of those offenses to be part of the "circumstances surrounding" his status as an "aider" within the meaning of the immunity statute. We therefore reverse the order and, on remand, direct the circuit court to reinstate the criminal complaint and to conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶4 The relevant facts are undisputed.2 On February 26, 2018, police officers were dispatched to the AIDS Resource Center in the City of Green Bay. When they arrived at the scene, they found Nicholas Kaczmarek seated in the front passenger seat of a vehicle belonging to Lyssa Root. Kaczmarek was being treated by paramedics for an apparent drug overdose.3 Root and Lecker, who was Root's boyfriend, were both present at the scene.
¶5 Police learned that earlier that day, Root had loaned her vehicle to Kaczmarek and Brandon Kiesling, although it also appears she was present in the vehicle with them at some point during the day. Later, Root was inside the apartment she shared with Lecker when she received a phone call from Kiesling, who was outside the apartment with Kaczmarek. Kiesling told Root that Kaczmarek was suffering from an overdose. Root frantically awoke Lecker, who had been sleeping, and Lecker decided to transport Kaczmarek to the AIDS Resource Center. After police arrived, Lecker told officers he had never met Kaczmarek before that day. Lecker and Root then left the scene.
¶6 The next day, Lecker voluntarily went to the Green Bay Police Department for an interview about the events concerning the overdose. Lecker denied any involvement in providing Kaczmarek with the drugs that had resulted in his overdose. Lecker also told police he had asked Root if she had provided the heroin to Kaczmarek, and she responded that she had not. Rather, Root told Lecker she saw Kaczmarek take heroin out of Kiesling's backpack and ingest it while she was in the vehicle with them.
¶7 Lecker told police he had "used heroin in the last month and a half and Vicodin after that as well as marijuana." Lecker stated he knew Root had used heroin within the last week and methamphetamine "a couple days ago." Lecker stated that he and Root had smoked marijuana out of pipes, bongs, blunts and joints.
¶8 Lecker also told police that after he and Root returned from the AIDS Resource Center, they had cleaned their apartment and got rid of most of the drug paraphernalia there. He admitted there were still a few marijuana pipes present, including one near their bedroom window. He gave police consent to search and provided a key to their apartment.
¶9 Police searched Lecker's residence later that evening. They discovered several marijuana pipes containing burnt marijuana residue, a baggie containing .01 grams of methamphetamine, and an orange pill bottle with the name "Robert Lecker" on it that contained the prescription drug doxazosin. The officers did not report finding any heroin in the apartment. Based on the contraband discovered during the search, Lecker was charged with four crimes: (1) possession of methamphetamine as party to the crime, near a park; (2) possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), second or subsequent offense, as party to the crime, near a park; (3) possession of an illegally obtained prescription drug as a party to the crime; and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia as a party to the crime.
¶10 Lecker filed a motion to dismiss all of the charges, asserting that he was entitled to immunity as an "aider" under WIS. STAT. § 961.443(2)(a). Lecker argued police searched his residence only because he obtained help for the overdosing Kaczmarek. In response, the State noted that Lecker had left the scene soon after he obtained aid for Kaczmarek and approximately twenty-four hours had elapsed between the rendering of aid and the discovery of contraband in his apartment.
¶11 The circuit court granted Lecker's motion and dismissed all the charges against him. The court applied a "but for" standard, determining there was a "sufficient nexus" between Lecker's providing aid to Kaczmarek and the discovery of contraband in his residence because the police "wouldn't have shown up there but for these individuals bringing in Mr. Kaczmarek who was overdosing." The ruling was memorialized in a written order, from which the State now appeals.
¶12 This appeal turns on the interpretation and application of WIS. STAT. § 961.443(2)(a). The interpretation of a statute and its application to undisputed facts are questions of law we determine de novo. State v. Jones , 2018 WI 44, ¶27, 381 Wis. 2d 284, 911 N.W.2d 97. We begin with the statute's plain language, and if the statute is unambiguous, we apply that language as written. State v. Harrison , 2020 WI 35, ¶34, 391 Wis. 2d 161, 942 N.W.2d 310. We give statutory language its common, ordinary and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially defined words or phrases are given their technical or special meaning. Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cty. , 2019 WI 24, ¶11, 385 Wis. 2d 748, 924 N.W.2d 153. Additionally, we interpret statutory language in the context in which it is used; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd results. Id.
¶13 As an initial matter, Lecker concedes that one of the charges against him was improperly dismissed based on WIS. STAT. § 961.443(2)(a). Subsection (2)(a) identifies a specific set of crimes for which immunity may be granted. These crimes include bail jumping under WIS. STAT. § 946.49, possession of drug paraphernalia under WIS. STAT. § 961.573, possession of a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog under WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g), and possession of a masking agent under WIS. STAT. § 961.69(2). The crime of possessing an illegally obtained prescription drug, which is prohibited by WIS. STAT. § 450.11(7)(h), is not a crime for which the legislature has granted immunity under § 961.443(2)(a). Accordingly, the circuit court erred by dismissing that charge. See State v. Williams , 2016 WI App 82, ¶20, 372 Wis. 2d 365, 888 N.W.2d 1 ().
The parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial