Opinion ID: 2214390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Warrant Requirements in Wisconsin

Text: ¶ 22 The warrant in this case suffered from two primary defects: (1) the circuit court did not have statutory authority to issue a warrant for failure to meet with a PSI investigator; and (2) the warrant was not supported by an oath or affirmation.
¶ 23 The defendant contends and the State concedes that the arrest warrant was issued without authority. ¶ 24 Under appropriate circumstances, a circuit court has statutory authority to issue a(1) civil bench warrant, (2) a criminal bench warrant, or (3) a contempt warrant. To illustrate, had the circuit court ordered Hess to comply with the requests of the PSI writer or made his cooperation a condition of bond, the court might have ordered the defendant arrested for contempt (Wis.Stat. §§ 785.03(1)(b), 785.04(1)) or issued a criminal bench warrant (Wis.Stat. § 968.09(1)) after Hess failed to follow up with the PSI writer. Had Hess failed to appear before the court on a civil matter, a civil bench warrant would have been appropriate (Chapter 818). Under the facts of this case, however, the warrant cannot be supported by any of these various statutes. The court issued what purported to be a civil bench warrant in a criminal case on the basis of Hess's failure to comply with an order the court never gave. ¶ 25 Civil arrests are governed by Wis. Stat. ch. 818. In a civil action, arrests are to be made only as prescribed by this chapter. Wis. Stat. § 818.01(1). The statute then lists eight circumstances under which a defendant may be arrested pursuant to a civil bench warrant. Wis. Stat. § 818.02. The procedures under the chapter, in turn, require that an order for the arrest of the defendant must be obtained from the court. Wis. Stat. § 818.03. The court may issue such an order where it shall appear by affidavit that a cause of action exists, and that it is one of those mentioned in s. 818.02. Wis. Stat. § 818.04 (emphasis added). To execute the warrant,  [t]he affidavit, bond and order of arrest shall be delivered to the sheriff. Wis. Stat. § 818.07 (emphasis added). ¶ 26 Nothing in the record suggests that any of the circumstances authorizing a civil bench warrant under § 818.02 existed. No affidavit was provided to the circuit court demonstrating the existence of any of those circumstances, and consequently no affidavit accompanied the order for arrest delivered to the sheriff. Equally important, the matter pending before the court was criminal, not civil. Therefore, the court was without authority to issue a civil bench warrant. ¶ 27 The court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant when a judge determines that there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed and that the accused has committed it. Wis. Stat. § 968.04. Hess's failure to cooperate with the agent in preparing a PSI was not a crime. In addition, under Wis. Stat. § 968.09(1), a court may issue a criminal arrest warrant when a witness fails to appear before the court as required or violates a term of the defendant's... bond. Here, Hess had not failed to appear for a court date. Nor had he violated a term of his bond, because meeting with the PSI agent was not a condition of his bond. Therefore, the circuit court was without authority to issue an arrest warrant under § 968.09(1). ¶ 28 Finally, Wis. Stat. ch. 785 permits a circuit court to order imprisonment as a remedial sanction for contempt of court. Such contempt is defined in relevant part as intentional [m]isconduct in the presence of the court or [d]isobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court. Wis. Stat. § 785.01(1)(a)-(b). There is nothing in the record to suggest that Hess satisfied either definition of contempt of court. In particular, he did not fail to comply with an explicit order of the court. Therefore, the arrest warrant was not authorized under ch. 785. ¶ 29 Because the circuit court had no authority to issue the warrant it did, exclusion is an appropriate remedy for evidence obtained as a result of that warrant. This court held in Kriegbaum that where a magistrate lacked authority to issue a warrant, the search conducted and evidence seized resulted in a constitutional violation. Kriegbaum, 194 Wis. at 232, 215 N.W. 896. In Kriegbaum, a justice of the peace issued a warrant authorizing a search of the person of the defendant, but the statutes authorized justices of the peace to issue warrants only to search a particular house or place. Id. From these facts, the court held: A search made pursuant to warrant issued by a justice of the peace to whom the legislature had not granted the power to issue such a warrant is an unreasonable search and in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Id. ¶ 30 The court of appeals has applied the principle articulated in Kriegbaum in several cases. In these cases, the court held that evidence must be suppressed when it was obtained pursuant to a warrant issued by a court commissioner not authorized to issue search warrants. State v. Loney, 110 Wis.2d 256, 258-60, 328 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App.1982); State v. Grawien, 123 Wis.2d 428, 431, 367 N.W.2d 816 (Ct.App.1985). [3] These cases, together with Kriegbaum, support the conclusion that exclusion is an appropriate remedy where evidence was obtained by a warrant issued by a magistrate who lacked the authority to issue the warrant. ¶ 31 This basic principle is reinforced by State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis.2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611. In Popenhagen, the state obtained evidence pursuant to subpoenas that did not satisfy the statutory requirement of a showing of probable cause. Id., ¶¶ 7, 13. We held that suppression was necessary because the means by which the state procured evidence was in violation of the procedures set out by statute. Id., ¶ 97. Allowing documents obtained by a subpoena not complying with the statutory probable cause requirement would make the statutory safeguards meaningless. Id., ¶ 61. By the same token, we held that suppression of an incriminating statement procured by use of those same documents was necessary to fully protect persons from the state's failure to comply with the statute. Id., ¶ 85. Like the subpoenas in Popenhagen, the warrant in this case did not conform to the basic statutory requirements. [4] ¶ 32 These cases lead us to conclude that because the statutes did not authorize a warrant under these circumstances, the warrant was void ab initio. In such a situation, exclusion is an appropriate remedy. The State is no more entitled to the use of the evidence here than it would be had law enforcement placed Hess in custody without a warrant in circumstances where a warrant was required. The warrant had no basis in fact or law and was void from the moment it was issued; therefore, the evidence seized pursuant to Hess's arrest is subject to the exclusionary rule.
¶ 33 Both the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions provide that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.... U.S. Const, amend. IV; Wis. Const, art. 1, § 11. We have declined to consider this requirement a mere technicality, but have upheld its basic substantive importance, stating: An oath is a matter of substance, not form, and it is an essential component of the Fourth Amendment and legal proceedings. The purpose of an oath or affirmation is to impress upon the swearing individual an appropriate sense of obligation to tell the truth. An oath or affirmation to support a search warrant reminds both the investigator seeking the search warrant and the magistrate issuing it of the importance and solemnity of the process involved. An oath or affirmation protects the target of the search from impermissible state action by creating liability for perjury or false swearing for those who abuse the warrant process by giving false or fraudulent information. An oath preserves the integrity of the search warrant process and thus protects the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Tye, 2001 WI 124, ¶ 19, 248 Wis.2d 530, 636 N.W.2d 473 (footnotes omitted). ¶ 34 When a warrant fails to comply with the constitutional oath or affirmation requirement, we have considered it to be invalid when issued. Id., ¶ 23. In Tye the warrant was facially defective because no sworn affidavit was attached, although the court held and the parties stipulated that the affidavit, if true and sworn, would have provided probable cause for the search. Id., ¶¶ 5, 7. We contrasted the warrant's deficiency with a case where the error was in the street number of the premises to be searched. State v. Nicholson, 174 Wis.2d 542, 544, 497 N.W.2d 791 (Ct.App.1993). In Nicholson, however, this error was only a technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant, allowing the warrant itself to be valid when issued. Tye, 248 Wis.2d 530, ¶ 23, 636 N.W.2d 473. ¶ 35 Here, the arrest warrant was not accompanied by an affidavit, sworn or unsworn. The absence of an affidavit violated Wis. Stat. §§ 818.04 and 818.07. The absence of a sworn affidavit violated the state and federal constitutions and rendered evidence obtained as a result of the warrant inadmissible. Tye, 248 Wis.2d 530, ¶ 3, 636 N.W.2d 473. An oath or affirmation is necessary to induce an honest belief in the mind of the magistrate that probable cause exists. Kraus v. State, 226 Wis. 383, 386, 276 N.W. 303 (1937) (citing State v. Baltes, 183 Wis. 545, 552, 198 N.W. 282 (1924) (suppressing evidence because no sworn testimony existed to support the warrant)). ¶ 36 The oath or affirmation and probable cause requirements apply equally to arrest warrants as well as search warrants. Giordenello v. U.S., 357 U.S. 480, 485-86, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958). The sworn complaint or affidavit is necessary to allow the judge or magistrate to make an informed determination regarding the existence of probable cause. Id. at 486, 78 S.Ct. 1245. The test for the sufficiency of a sworn complaint or affidavit is whether it can support the independent judgment of a disinterested magistrate. Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Pen., 401 U.S. 560, 565, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971). ¶ 37 Without an affidavit accompanied by oath or affirmation, the warrant failed to meet a basic constitutional requirement and was void ab initio. See Tye, 248 Wis.2d 530, ¶ 13, 636 N.W.2d 473. The absence of any affidavit should have put both the court and the sheriff's department on notice of a problem.