State v. Marquardt
| Decision Date | 23 November 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2004AP1609-CR.,No. 2004AP958-CR.,2004AP958-CR.,2004AP1609-CR. |
| Citation | 2005 WI 157,705 N.W.2d 878 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill Paul MARQUARDT, Defendant-Respondent. State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bill P. Marquardt, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the State of Wisconsin the cause was argued by James M. Freimuth, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the briefs was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Attorney General.
For Bill Marquardt there were briefs by John Brinckman and John Brinckman SC, La Crosse, and Patricia A. Fitzgerald and Patricia A Fitzgerald Law Office, Mt. Horeb and oral argument by Patricia A. Fitzgerald and John M. Brinckman.
The court of appeals certified this consolidated criminal appeal in two circuit court cases involving the same defendant, Bill Paul Marquardt. In one case, the State appeals an order of the Chippewa County Circuit Court suppressing evidence obtained in a search of Marquardt's cabin and an order denying the State's motion for reconsideration of the suppression order. In the other case, Marquardt appeals an order of the Eau Claire County Circuit Court denying his motion for post-commitment relief in which he had renewed an earlier challenge to the same search.1
¶ 2 The court of appeals certified the following questions regarding the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule:
(1) Does the search warrant application in this case meet the third test set out in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), that it must not be so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render the officers' belief in its existence entirely unreasonable?
(2) Did the investigation in these cases meet the "significant investigation" test set out in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶ 63, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625?2
¶ 3 We determine that the affidavit in support of the warrant contains indicia of probable cause sufficient to meet the Leon test and that the facts here demonstrate a significant investigation pursuant to Eason. We therefore conclude that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the search of Marquardt's cabin. Additionally, we reject an assertion by Marquardt that the circuit court erred in finding him not competent to represent himself in the Eau Claire County case.
¶ 4 Accordingly, we reverse the Chippewa County Circuit Court orders and affirm the Eau Claire County Circuit Court order. We remand to the circuit court in each case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 5 On March 13, 2000, Marquardt's father discovered the dead body of his wife, Marquardt's mother, in their Chippewa County home. She had been shot and stabbed.
¶ 6 That same day, law enforcement officers obtained and executed a warrant to search the home. Within two days of the discovery of the body, an estimated 20 law enforcement officers, including State Department of Justice agents, became involved in an extensive investigation of the crime.
¶ 7 On March 15, officers obtained and executed a search warrant for an Eau Claire County cabin in which Marquardt had been staying. According to the warrant application, Marquardt's father told Investigator Richard Price that Marquardt had not been seen or heard from since the location of his mother's body. The warrant application also noted that the body was covered in a blanket.3
¶ 8 As a result of the March 15 search of Marquardt's cabin, officers found three dog carcasses and three rabbit carcasses. They also found, among other evidence, sections of bloodstained carpet, a bloodstained quilt, a bloodstained tarp, two rifles, and a large knife with a sheath. Marquardt was charged in Eau Claire County with mistreatment of an animal resulting in the animal's death, and a warrant issued for his arrest.4
¶ 9 On March 18, officers arrested Marquardt outside his cabin. During a search incident to arrest, they found a folding knife and noticed blood spatters on Marquardt's shoes and jacket. Subsequent crime lab testing indicated that the DNA found in the blood on Marquardt's folding knife and one of his shoes was a match for his mother's DNA.
¶ 10 Law enforcement officers also searched a vehicle parked at the cabin. The vehicle had a reddish stain on the interior driver's door panel, and crime lab testing indicated that blood on a shirt in the vehicle's trunk was also a DNA match for Marquardt's mother.
¶ 11 Marquardt was charged in Chippewa County with intentional homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon. He pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect to the charges. Marquardt then moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of his cabin. He argued that the search warrant, on its face, failed to provide probable 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 support a probable cause finding. Id., ¶¶ 14-19, 635 N.W.2d 188. At the same time, however, the court of appeals remanded for the circuit court to address the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as adopted by this court in Eason. See Marquardt, 247 Wis.2d 765, ¶¶ 20-23, 53, 635 N.W.2d 188.5
¶ 13 After the court of appeals issued its decision in the Chippewa County case, Marquardt moved the circuit court in the Eau Claire County case to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of his cabin. In support of his motion, he cited the court of appeals decision. In addition, he argued that the good faith exception did not apply because the police had not undertaken a "significant investigation" as required by Eason.
¶ 14 The circuit court denied Marquardt's motion after holding an evidentiary hearing on the good faith issue. The court determined that the State had met the test for good faith under Eason.
¶ 15 Marquardt subsequently sought to represent himself. Although the Eau Claire County Circuit Court had determined that Marquardt was competent to stand trial, it concluded that he was not competent to proceed pro se.
¶ 16 After a jury found Marquardt guilty on all charges, the Eau Claire County Circuit Court found Marquardt not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court ordered Marquardt committed to the Department of Health and Family Services for 75 years.
¶ 17 Marquardt renewed his challenge to the search of his cabin in a post-commitment motion. The circuit court denied the motion, and Marquardt appealed.
¶ 18 Meanwhile, on remand in the homicide case in Chippewa County, the circuit court concluded that the search of Marquardt's cabin failed to satisfy the good faith requirement as set forth in Leon because the search warrant application was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no officer could have reasonably believed the warrant contained probable cause to search Marquardt's cabin. Accordingly, the circuit court ordered that evidence obtained as a result of the search be suppressed.6 After the court denied a motion for reconsideration by the State, the State appealed both the circuit court's suppression order and the court's order denying the State's motion for reconsideration.
¶ 19 Marquardt's appeal in the Eau Claire County case and the State's appeal in the Chippewa County case are now before us on certification pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 (2003-04).
¶ 20 There is no dispute that the facts in the March 15, 2000, search warrant for Marquardt's cabin were insufficient to supply probable cause for the search. The central issue we address, which is the same in both cases, is whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the search of Marquardt's cabin. In addressing a good faith issue, we will uphold a circuit court's findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See State v. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d 128, 137, 456 N.W.2d 830 (1990). However, whether a search ultimately satisfies constitutional standards is a question of law subject to independent appellate review. See id. at 137-38, 456 N.W.2d 830.
¶ 21 We must also address Marquardt's assertion that the Eau Claire County Circuit Court erred in finding him not competent to represent himself. We review a circuit court determination of whether a defendant is competent to proceed pro se under what is "essentially a clearly erroneous standard of review." State v. Garfoot, 207 Wis.2d 214, 224, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997); see also State v. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, ¶ 45, 237 Wis.2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477.7
¶ 22 In addressing the good faith issue, we initially examine the good faith standards recognized in Leon and Eason. We then analyze the warrant in light of the relevant standards and determine that the good faith exception applies. Finally, we turn to the competency issue and conclude that the Eau Claire County Circuit Court did not err in determining that Marquardt was not competent to proceed pro se.
¶ 23 Reviewing courts accord great deference to the warrant-issuing judge's probable cause determination, which will stand "unless the defendant establishes that the facts are clearly insufficient to support a finding of probable cause." State v. Higginbotham, 162 Wis.2d 978, 989, 471 N.W.2d 24 (1991). Here, the court of appeals has already determined that the facts in the warrant were insufficient to support the issuing judge's finding of probable cause. See Marquardt, 247 Wis.2d 765, ¶ 19, 635 N.W.2d 188. The court of appeals determination does not, however, end our inquiry in this case in light of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as set forth in Leon and Eason.
¶ 24 In Leon, the Supreme Court recognized an objective good faith exception to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Scull
... ... The affidavit states that it was reviewed and approved by ADA Christopher Ladwig on 07022010. Thus, it is evident that the affidavit was reviewed by a knowledgeable government attorney. See State v. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, 46, 286 Wis.2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878 (testimony that an experienced district attorney had met with the officers and drafted the warrant established that it had been reviewed by a knowledgeable government attorney); Eason, 245 Wis.2d 206, 71, 629 N.W.2d 625 (determining that warrant ... ...
-
State v. Walker
... ... Cherna, 184 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir.1999) (If the good-faith exception applies, we need not reach the question of probable cause.); see also State v. Marquardt, 286 Wis.2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878, 890 n. 13 (2005) (deeming determination of probable cause unnecessary because the warrant was based on an affidavit containing indicia of probable cause sufficient to trigger the exception to the exclusionary rule provided by Leon ). FN22. Cf. Rhodes v ... ...
-
State Of Wis. v. Imani
... ... State , 96 Wis.2d 549, 569-70, 292 N.W.2d 601 (1980), ... overruled on other grounds by ... Klessig , 211 Wis.2d at 206, 212, 564 N.W.2d 716 (expressly “affirm[ing] the holding in ... Pickens as still controlling on the issue of competency”); ... see also ... State v. Marquardt , 2005 WI 157, ¶ 21, 286 Wis.2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878 (quoting ... State v. Garfoot , 207 Wis.2d 214, 224, 558 N.W.2d 626 (1997)) (“We review a circuit court determination of whether a defendant is competent to proceed pro se under what is ‘essentially a clearly erroneous standard of ... ...
-
State v. Sloan
... ... "Probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime does not automatically give the police probable cause to search his house for evidence of that crime." State v. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, ¶ 81, 286 Wis.2d 204, 705 N.W.2d 878 (quoting Higginbotham, 162 Wis.2d at 995, 471 N.W.2d 24). "[P]robable cause cannot be upheld ... if the affidavit provides nothing more than the legal conclusions of the affiant." Kerr, 181 Wis.2d at 378, 511 ... 736 N.W.2d 200 ... N.W.2d ... ...
-
Searches of the home
...the warrant be reviewed by either a prosecutor or a police oficer trained in the legal vagaries of probable cause. State v. Marquardt , 705 N.W.2d 878 (Wis. 2005). Indiana will not apply the good faith exception if the search warrant fails to comply with the requirements of Ind. Code §35-33......
-
Searches of the home
...the warrant be reviewed by either a prosecutor or a police officer trained in the legal vagaries of probable cause. State v. Marquardt , 705 N.W.2d 878 (Wis. 2005). Indiana will not apply the good faith exception if the search warrant fails to comply with the requirements of Ind. Code §35-3......
-
Searches of the Home
...the warrant be reviewed by either a prosecutor or a police oficer trained in the legal vagaries of probable cause. State v. Marquardt , 705 N.W.2d 878 (Wis. 2005). Indiana will not SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 4-13 §4:36 apply the good faith exception if the search warrant fails to comply ......
-
Searches of the Home
...the warrant be reviewed by either a prosecutor or a police o൶cer trained in the legal vagaries of probable cause. State v. Marquardt , 705 N.W.2d 878 (Wis. 2005). Indiana will not apply the good faith exception if the search warrant fails to comply with the requirements of Ind. Code §35-33-......