State v. Marquardt
Decision Date | 21 August 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 01-0065-CR.,01-0065-CR. |
Citation | 2001 WI App 219,635 N.W.2d 188,247 Wis.2d 765 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bill Paul MARQUARDT, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of James B. Connell of Crooks, Low, Connell & Rottier, S.C. of Wausau.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, attorney general, and James M. Freimuth, assistant attorney general. Before Cane, C.J., Hoover, P.J., and Peterson, J.
¶ 1.
In this interlocutory appeal, Bill Paul Marquardt appeals from an order (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for his home; (2) denying his request for a Franks3 hearing; and (3) denying his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of his vehicle.
¶ 2. We conclude first that there was insufficient probable cause to justify the search warrant for Marquardt's home. Because our supreme court recently adopted the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, see State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶ 74, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625,
we reverse that portion of the court's order and remand for a determination of whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in this case. Second, we do not address Marquardt's request for a Franks hearing because we have concluded that there was insufficient probable cause to support the search warrant. Finally, we conclude that the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement applies to the warrantless search of Marquardt's vehicle. Thus, we affirm that portion of the court's order denying suppression of evidence from Marquardt's vehicle on warrantless search grounds.
¶ 3. On March 13, 2000, Alfred Marquardt found his wife, Mary, dead in their garage. Mary had been shot and stabbed. Officers investigating the death immediately obtained a warrant to search the home. ¶ 4. On March 15, officers obtained a warrant to search the home of Mary and Alfred's son, Bill Marquardt. Officers conducting the search found dead animals at Bill Marquardt's home and subsequently obtained an arrest warrant for Marquardt on a charge of cruelty to animals.
¶ 5. On March 18, Marquardt was arrested at his home. At the time of his arrest, Marquardt's locked vehicle was parked in his driveway. In the hours after Marquardt was arrested, the Eau Claire County Sheriff's Department arranged for the vehicle to be hauled to the department, where it was then searched. Two days later, the vehicle was transported to the State Crime Laboratory in Madison where it was again searched. No warrant was ever obtained for the search and seizure of the vehicle.
¶ 6. On May 4, Marquardt was charged with one count of first-degree intentional homicide and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Following a preliminary hearing and bindover, Marquardt filed several motions to suppress evidence. Two motions are relevant to this appeal: a motion to suppress evidence that was seized from Marquardt's home pursuant to the March 15 search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence that was seized from Marquardt's car without a search warrant.4
¶ 7. The circuit court conducted motion hearings on July 31 and December 8. At the first hearing, the court held that the search warrant for Marquardt's home was issued upon sufficient probable cause and denied Marquardt's request for a Franks hearing on the issue of whether the application for a search warrant contained material misstatements and omissions. Following the second day of hearings, the court issued a memorandum decision denying the motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle, concluding that the search was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
¶ 8. Marquardt seeks reversal of the circuit court's order finding probable cause in the search warrant application, denying his request for a Franks hearing, and denying the suppression of evidence derived from the warrantless vehicle search. By order of January 24, 2001, we granted Marquardt's request for leave to appeal the court's order.
[1-3]
¶ 9. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and art. I, § 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution guarantee Wisconsin citizens freedom from "unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, ¶ 25, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72. The question whether police conduct violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of constitutional fact. Id. at ¶ 23. On review, this court gives deference to the trial court's findings of evidentiary or historical fact, but determines the question of constitutional fact independently. Id.
[4]
¶ 10. Marquardt argues that the March 15 search warrant for his house was issued based on insufficient probable cause. A search warrant may issue only when a neutral and detached magistrate (or judge, as in this case) finds probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be found in a particular place. See State v. Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶ 21, 231 Wis. 2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517
.
[5, 6]
¶ 11. Whether there is probable cause is determined by examining the "totality of the circumstances." Id. at ¶ 26. A finding of probable cause is a commonsense test:
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
Id. at ¶ 23 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).
[7, 8]
¶ 12. A probable cause determination must be based upon what a reasonable judge can infer from the information presented by the police. Ward, 2000 WI 3 at ¶ 26. The issuing judge ordinarily considers only the facts set forth in supporting affidavits accompanying the warrant application. See id. [9-11]
¶ 13. It is the duty of the reviewing court to ensure that the judge had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. Id. at ¶ 21. We must consider whether, objectively viewed, the record before the judge provided sufficient facts to excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind that the objects sought are linked with the commission of a crime, and that they will be found in the place to be searched. Id. at ¶ 27. We accord great deference to the determination made by the warrant-issuing judge. Id. at ¶ 21. Thus, the judge's determination will stand unless the defendant establishes that the facts are clearly insufficient to support a probable cause finding. Id.
[12]
¶ 14. With these standards in mind, we examine the facts that were presented to the judge. The judge did not take any testimony in support of the search warrant application. Instead, only written documents were provided. The application for Marquardt's home, dated March 15, was completed by a detective from the Eau Claire County Sheriff's Department, and was based upon the following statement of facts:
¶ 15. The search warrant application sought permission to search for ammunition; firearms; clothing containing Mary's hair, blood or fibers; knives; shoes; and documents that may indicate Marquardt's whereabouts on or after March 13.
¶ 16. The March 13 search warrant for Mary's home that was referred to in the March 15 application contained the following statement of facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. State
...precluding warrantless searches on private property under all circumstances." 345 F.3d at 237-38. Similarly, in State v. Marquardt, 247 Wis.2d 765, 635 N.W.2d 188 (Ct.App.2001), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals "Despite the `public place' language that appears in [various Wisconsin] cases, we......
-
State v. Marquardt
...cause for the search. ¶ 12 The circuit court denied Marquardt's motion to suppress, but the court of appeals reversed. See State v. Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, ¶¶ 7-8, 20, 53, 247 Wis.2d 765, 635 N.W.2d 188. The court of appeals determined that the facts in the warrant were insufficient to ......
-
State v. Scott
...and omissions."¶43 The State contends on appeal that it is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the good-faith exception. See State v. Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, ¶¶20-23, 247 Wis. 2d 765, 635 N.W.2d 188 (remanding for circuit court to address good-faith exception adopted in Eason , in a c......
-
State v. Coffee
...deputies’ reasonable suspicion that he committed the car theft to probable cause that he obstructed their investigation."); State v. Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, ¶19, 247 Wis. 2d 765, 635 N.W.2d 188 (Explaining that there was "nothing in the facts to tie [the defendant] to the crime, much le......
-
Motion practice
...is readily mobile. Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Thompson v. State , 265 N.W.2d 467( Wisc. 1978); State v. Marquardt , 635 N.W.2d 188 (Wisc. Ct. App 1991). However, police officers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.” Continue with a blending of facts and law that illus......
-
Motion Practice
...is readily mobile. Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Thompson v. State , 265 N.W.2d 467( Wisc. 1978); State v. Marquardt , 635 N.W.2d 188 (Wisc. Ct. App 1991). However, police oficers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.” Continue with a blending of facts and law that illust......
-
Motion practice
...is readily mobile. Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Thompson v. State , 265 N.W.2d 467( Wisc. 1978); State v. Marquardt , 635 N.W.2d 188 (Wisc. Ct. App 1991). However, police oficers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.” Continue with a blending of facts and law that illust......
-
Motion Practice
...is readily mobile. Chambers v. Maroney , 399 U.S. 42 (1970); Thompson v. State , 265 N.W.2d 467( Wisc. 1978); State v. Marquardt , 635 N.W.2d 188 (Wisc. Ct. App 1991). However, police o൶cers lacked probable cause to search the vehicle.” Continue with a blending of facts and law that illustr......