Opinion ID: 2069253
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Suppression of trousers.

Text: Prior to the trial, the defendant moved to have the trousers, which he had put on at the time he was arrested  and which subsequently were found to contain a bloodstain of the victim's but not the defendant's blood type, suppressed. At the suppression hearing the arresting officers testified for the state that the defendant was informed of his arrest, was advised of his constitutional rights, and was told to put on the clothes that he had worn that evening (the night of the alleged murder). Defendant denied that the officers had instructed him to put on any particular clothing and insisted that they merely handed him clothing to put on. The defendant also testified at trial that he did not wear the trousers in question on the night of the incident. Several witnesses also testified he was not wearing the trousers on the night of April 5-6, 1972. The defendant explained the existence of bloodstains on his trousers by testifying that the victim was subject to nose bleeds; that the bloodstains on his trousers were probably the result of such an incident when he and the victim were in a car on a previous occasion. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress. In doing so, he found there was probable cause to arrest the defendant. It is our opinion the facts in the record show that this ruling of the trial court was correct. We would observe that the defendant, in his brief, in summarizing the information available to the police on the issue of probable cause, omits one important fact: Robin had told the police the defendant killed her mother. The arrest being valid, . . . a search incidental to that arrest is proper, and evidence obtained in that search may be received in evidence. State v. Paszek (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 619, 625, 184 N. W. 2d 836.