Opinion ID: 2214390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the eason requirements

Text: ¶ 91 I write further to address the appropriateness of applying the additional requirements of Eason to bench warrants. This court, in State v. Eason , adopted two additional requirements during the search warrant application process, making them necessary in order to shield any seized evidence from suppression if the search warrant is later deemed invalid. 2001 WI 98, ¶ 74, 245 Wis.2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. The State must show that the process used in obtaining the search warrant included a significant investigation and a review by either a police officer trained and knowledgeable in the requirements of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, or a knowledgeable government attorney. Id. (emphasis added). Such safeguards, we held, were required by Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Id. [10] ¶ 92 These requirements are wholly inappropriate in the context of bench warrants, which normally need not involve any police investigation. ¶ 93 Bench warrants are available in criminal, civil, and contempt proceedings. See Wis. Stat. § 968.09 (2007-08) [11] (bench warrants in criminal cases for defendants or witnesses who fail to appear or violate bond); Wis. Stat. ch. 818 (bench warrants in civil cases for defendants who fail to pay judgments or fines and other defendants from whom something is required); Wis. Stat. § 818.01(2) (bench warrants for parties subject to contempt proceedings under chapter 785). None of the proceedings requires police to apply for the warrant. See § 968.09 (court may issue warrant on its own); ch. 818 (court may issue warrant upon request of plaintiffs); Wis. Stat. § 785.03 (court may issue warrant upon request of aggrieved parties or on its own). ¶ 94 Because of this, applying the Eason requirements to bench warrants makes no sense. How are officers to ensure a significant investigation has taken place preceding the issuance of a bench warrant that the police had no role in? And what sort of review should the arresting officer in this case have undertaken before acting on what he understood was a valid arrest warrant? The majority first suggests that the Eason requirements are not necessary in situations where police are not involved in seeking a bench warrant, see majority op., ¶ 57, but later implies that some investigation or review could have saved the evidence in this case from exclusion, see majority op., ¶ 60.