Case Name: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerard J. Verkuylen, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1984-06-12
Citations: 120 Wis. 2d 59
Docket Number: No. 83-634-CR
Parties: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerard J. Verkuylen, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before Foley, P.J., Dean and Cane, JJ.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 120
Pages: 59–63

Head Matter:
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerard J. Verkuylen, Defendant-Respondent.
Court of Appeals
No. 83-634-CR.
Submitted on briefs May 7, 1984.
Decided June 12, 1984.
(Also reported in 352 N.W.2d 668.)
For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of Bronson C. La Follette, attorney general, and Michael R. Klos, assistant attorney general.
For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Robinson, Smith & Robinson and Ron Smith, of Appleton.
Before Foley, P.J., Dean and Cane, JJ.

Opinion:
FOLEY, P.J.
The state appeals the circuit court's order suppressing evidence obtained in executing a search warrant issued by a court commissioner. The court suppressed the evidence because the commissioner, due to a judicial oversight, had not been formally authorized to issue search warrants. See sec. 757.69(1) (b), Stats. Because we conclude that this oversight does not justify suppression of the evidence in this case, we reverse the order and remand this matter to the circuit court with directions to admit the evidence.
The state concedes that the commissioner's warrant was defective under State v. Loney, 110 Wis. 2d 256, 328 N.W.2d 872 (1982). Loney does not, however, hold that the court must suppress the evidence seized while executing the defective warrant.
The suppression of evidence is not a constitutional right. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). It is a judge-made requirement to deter unreasonable or bad-faith police conduct. United States v. Williams, 622 F.2d 880, 841-42, 847 (5th Cir. 1980). Its application must be considered in light of its effect of depriving the court or jury of relevant evidence, endangering society, and allowing the guilty to go free. Id. at 842. Suppression is therefore required only upon a showing that evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right, State v. Hochman, 2 Wis. 2d 410, 419, 86 N.W.2d 446, 451 (1957), or when a statute specifically requires suppression of illegally obtained evidence, see State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971).
In this case, no constitutional right was violated, and no statute requires suppression. The commissioner who issued the search warrant was neutral, and he acted upon probable cause. He had been issuing search warrants for years, and the circuit judges in the district knew and approved of him issuing warrants. The failure of a judge to formally authorize the commissioner to issue search warrants was nothing more than a judicial oversight, which has since been corrected. The oversight was not the fault of the police, and the police did not benefit from it. Under these circumstances, the court should not suppress the evidence. See Williams, 622 F.2d at 847.
By the Court. — Order reversed and cause remanded with directions.
Section 757.69(1) (b), Stats., provides in part:
On authority delegated by a judge, which may he by a standard order, and with the approval of the chief judge of the judicial administrative district, a court commissioner . . . may:
(b) In criminal matters issue . . . search warrants .