Title: State v. Henry G. Wagner

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 63 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2003AP1878-CR 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
     v. 
Henry G. Wagner,  
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
(no cite) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
June 2, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
March 30, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Richard J. Sankovitz   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
by John T. Wasielewski and Wasielewski & Erickson, Milwaukee, 
and oral argument by John T. Wasielewski. 
 
For the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was argued by 
Jeffrey J. Kassel, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 
 
 
2005 WI 63
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2003AP1878-CR  
(L.C. No. 
01CF5884) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
     v. 
 
Henry G. Wagner, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
  JUN 2, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.     Henry G. Wagner petitioned for review 
of the court of appeals' summary disposition, State v. Wagner, 
No. 2003AP1878-CR, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. August 27, 
2004), that affirmed a judgment convicting Wagner of one count 
of armed robbery.  The court of appeals concluded that 
statements made by Wagner while the West Allis Police Department 
officers were booking him fell within the routine booking 
exception to Miranda.1 
                                                 
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 
No. 
2003AP1878-CR   
 
2 
 
¶2 
We accepted review to determine the scope of the 
"booking exception" to the requirement that police give Miranda 
warnings prior to questioning a suspect while in custody.  After 
examining the record and the briefs of the parties, and after 
hearing oral argument, we conclude that the petition for review 
was improvidently granted.  Because it is not clear whether the 
officer limited the questioning to the booking form or whether 
follow-up questions were asked, and because the record is silent 
as to which of Wagner's statements were volunteered or in 
response to police questioning, we conclude that this case does 
not present the issue for which we granted review; therefore, we 
dismiss the petition for review.  
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 
 
 
 
No. 
2003AP1878-CR   
 
 
 
1