Court Opinion

ID: 9664013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:59:39.456325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:01.074855
License: Public Domain

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.
¶ 160. 0concurring in part and dissenting in part). — I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that Jerrell C.J.'s confession was not voluntary, and therefore his delinquency conviction must be reversed. Majority op., ¶ 59. I also agree that requiring law enforcement to tape record its questioning of juveniles wherever possible and on all occasions when a juvenile is questioned at a place of detention would benefit both juveniles and law enforcement. However, I cannot join in the court's *222mandate that unless interviews with juveniles are tape recorded, statements made in those interviews will be suppressed at trial. Majority op., ¶ 47.
¶ 161. The majority claims that Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution gives the supreme court the power to suppress statements taken in contravention of its directive. Majority op., ¶ 49. In my view, the court's superintending authority under Article VII, Section 3 does not permit the court to interfere in the practices of law enforcement unless those practices violate either a constitutional right or a law established by the legislature. Failing to record interrogations of juveniles does neither. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
¶ 162. This court has never before concluded that it had the power to suppress defendants' statements in certain situations merely because it preferred a different law enforcement technique in the procurement of those statements, as it concludes today. To the contrary, suppression of a defendant's statement has been required only when the law enforcement conduct at issue threatened an imminent loss of defendants' constitutional rights or was illegal.1 Accordingly, the step taken *223by the majority opinion is a huge expansion of the court's Article VII, Section 3 powers.
¶ 163. As a preamble to the exercise of what it describes as the court's supervisory powers granted in Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, the majority opinion declares:
Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution expressly confers upon this court superintending and administrative authority over all state courts. This provision "is a grant of power. It is unlimited in extent. It is indefinite in character." (citing State v. Jennings, 2002 WI 44, ¶ 13, 252 Wis. 2d 228, 647 N.W.2d 142 (quoting State ex rel. Fourth Nat'l Bank of Philadelphia v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 591, 611, 79 N.W. 1081 (1899)).
Majority op., ¶ 40. While the words used in the quote from Johnson are accurately repeated, they are taken out of context, and in so doing, the majority opinion gives them a meaning that is completely different from that expressed in Johnson.2
*224¶ 164. Article VII, Section 3 currently has three sentences that pertain to the supreme court's jurisdiction: (1) superintending and administrative authority over all courts; (2) original jurisdiction; and (3) appellate jurisdiction.3 When the decision in Johnson was made, Article VII, Section 3 was expressed in three clauses. Because the court of appeals had not yet been created, Section 3 was worded differently in regard to the court's appellate jurisdiction as well. However, the court had been granted superintending authority over all "inferior courts," and it was that power the Johnson decision examined.4
¶ 165. The question presented in Johnson was whether the exercise of the court's superintending power was limited to the court's use of the specific writs listed in Section 3. Johnson, 103 Wis. at 610-11. The court concluded that the superintending power was an independent grant of constitutional power from that *225listed in the writs clause of Section 3, and that the exercise of the superintending power was not dependent on the use of a writ. Id. at 610-12.
¶ 166. In so concluding, the court repeated the words used in the superintending clause of Article VII, Section 3 and explained that the wording of that clause was "unlimited in extent," meaning that the grant of power did not have to be exercised through the use of a writ listed in the following clause of Section 3. The court's statement that the wording of the clause was "indefinite in character" confirmed that the court could exercise its power in ways other than that accorded in a listed writ. The court in Johnson was not concluding that the power granted in the superintending clause of Section 3 was unlimited in extent or indefinite in character, only that the means by which that power could be exercised was not limited by the writs clause of Section 3. Id. After its explanation of the lack of a limitation on the means by which superintending control could be exercised, the court described, in lengthy detail, that the superintending power of the court was the power to control the course of ordinary litigation in all other courts. Id. at 612. The court explained that Section 3 mirrored the power of a court known as King's Bench under English common law when the Wisconsin Constitution was created. Id. at 612-14. Because the King's Bench had power broader than the writs clause of Article VII, Section 3, the court concluded that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had that power as well. Id. at 614 — 16.
¶ 167. The majority contends that the requirement that a juvenile's statements to law enforcement cannot be used at trial unless the questioning was accomplished with the required tape recording is simply a rule of evidence. Majority op., ¶ 48. However, in order *226for the supreme court to create an evidentiary rule, it must give notice and have a hearing. See Wis. S. Ct. IOP III-A (September 16, 1996). There was no notice or hearing that the court was considering a new rule of evidence.5 Additionally, the mandate is intended to affect law enforcement practices. Majority op., ¶¶ 46-47. The legislature has the power to regulate how law enforcement conducts its official duties. See, e.g., State ex rel. Young v. Shaw, 165 Wis. 2d 276, 287-88, 477 N.W.2d 340 (Ct. App. 1991). Absent the necessity to protect against an imminent infringement of defendants' constitutional rights or a violation of the constitution or a statute, the supreme court does not have the authority to regulate how law enforcement, a part of the executive branch of government, accomplishes its official duties.
¶ 168. Furthermore, this case is not the first time that we have been asked to interpret our superintending authority to regulate proceedings in another branch of government. In State ex rel. Thompson v. Nash, 27 Wis. 2d 183, 133 N.W.2d 769 (1965), we were asked to interpret the constitution to permit the circuit court, which had superintending powers under then Article VII, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, to proscribe procedures used in an administrative proceeding. Id. at 193. We declined to do so, concluding that we have never interpreted superintending powers as sufficient "to interfere with the orderly operating procedures of an administrative agency in the absence of a showing of a denial of due process." Id. at 194.6
*227¶ 169. While we adopted recording as one of the criteria to consider before admitting hypnotically affected testimony in State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis. 2d 555, 571 n.23, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983), the majority takes this approach further here by not merely outlining guidelines for the admissibility of a certain type of evidence, but instead instituting a per se ban on such evidence. It prohibits circuit courts from admitting such evidence under circumstances where the reliability and voluntary nature of the testimony could not be challenged and its only "flaw" is that it was not recorded.
¶ 170. Likewise, interrogations of juveniles differ from the polygraph evidence at issue in State v. Dean, 103 Wis. 2d 228, 307 N.W.2d 628 (1981), where we concluded that "the lack of [an adequate standard for circuit courts to gauge the reliability of polygraph evidence] heightens our concern that the burden on the trial court to assess the reliability of stipulated polygraph evidence may outweigh any probative value the evidence may have." Id. at 279. Here, courts have longstanding standards by which to assess whether an in-custody admission was knowing and voluntary. The majority does not contend that unrecorded admissions are per se unreliable, but instead chooses to institute a blanket prohibition on unrecorded admissions simply because it prefers this alternative.
*228¶ 171. The majority opinion concentrates both the legislative and the judicial power in the supreme court.7 By its mandate, the court has enacted a law (custodial questioning of juveniles must be tape recorded where feasible and without exception if the questioning occurs at a place of detention); the court will interpret its law (if a question arises about whether tape recording is required by the circumstances of the case); and the court will mete out the punishment for a violation (exclusion of all statements made if not recorded under the circumstances set out in the majority opinion).
¶ 172. Concentration of power in one branch of government in a tripartite system of government is suspect because the system was created to prevent exactly that. See State v. Holmes, 106 Wis. 2d 31, 42, 315 N.W.2d 703 (1982). Concentration permits one branch of government to exercise power with no procedural check or balance by another branch. As we, ourselves, have repeatedly explained, the Wisconsin Constitution envisions a separation of the legislative and judicial powers. Id. Here, a majority of the court says it has the requisite constitutional power. Query: If the court bases its decision on the constitution, who is to say the court has gone too far when the supreme court is the final arbiter of what the constitution means?
¶ 173. The concurrence of the Chief Justice discusses at great length a view of the extent of this court's *229supervisory authority under Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution. In none of the cases cited has the Wisconsin Supreme Court even tangentially implied that the supreme court has the authority to direct how law enforcement carries out its official duties. Yet, that is the issue that the majority opinion takes up here: Can this court suppress the admission of statements obtained by law enforcement, through means that are neither unconstitutional nor contrary to statute, by virtue of the supervisory authority contained in Article VII, Section 3?
¶ 174. The concurrence also asserts that the "exercise [of the court's] superintending power here is a question of policy, not power." Chief Justice Abrahamson's concurrence, ¶ 65. This Anew assumes that the supreme court does have the power to regulate police conduct that is neither unconstitutional nor Adolative of a statute. This assertion is taken from the writings of Justice Bablitch in State ex rel. Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128, 248 Wis. 2d 634, 636 N.W.2d 707, where he explains that in that case, "The question of whether the court will exercise its superintending authority is one of policy, not power." Id., ¶ 12. However, in Hass there was no doubt that the supreme court did have the power to direct the court of appeals to grant all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court had denied the defense that the action was barred due to a final federal court judgment. Id., ¶ 10. The issue presented in Hass was whether the court should do so. Id. Here, the issue is whether the court does, indeed, have the power it has exercised.
¶ 175. I disagree with the assertion that the early interpretations of Article VII, Section 3 were "broad." Chief Justice Abrahamson's concurrence, ¶ 77. To the contrary, our earliest cases after the adoption of the *230Wisconsin Constitution explained that the supreme court's Article VII, Section 3 supervisory power related only to the supreme court's regulation of other state courts. In Attorney General v. Blossom, 1 Wis. 317 (1853), we sought to explain how these powers could be exercised: "What, then, are the means, instrumentalities and agencies by which this power is to be exercised? Clearly the ordinary means provided by the common law, or such as should be supplied by legislative enactment." Id. at 325-26. And in Seiler v. State, 112 Wis. 293, 87 N.W. 1072 (1901) we said: "The power of superintending control is the power to 'control the course of ordinary litigation in inferior courts,' as exercised at common law by the court of Kang's Bench, and by the use of writs specifically mentioned in the constitution and other writs there referred to or authorized." Id. at 299. The court in Seiler then went on to explain how the constitutional terms were chosen and their meaning at the time the constitution was adopted:
The term "superintending control" then had a well-defined meaning, and it, and none other, was carried into the constitution by the framers thereof. In order to correctly understand that meaning, we must view the constitution from the standpoint of its framers. If we were not anchored firmly to the common-law idea of the extent of mere superintending control of one court over another, as distinguished from appellate jurisdiction, we should drift at once into confusion in respect to the scope of the authority of this court. While the true limits of judicial power must be jealously guarded and firmly maintained, it would be as dangerous to extend as to limit the same, by giving to the language in which the jurisdiction was granted a meaning different from that which was in mind when the grant was made. The power of superintending control, as has been decided and before indicated, has to do only with controlling inferior courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction ....
*231Id. at 300. Certainly any reader will see the leap from supervising lower courts to supervising law enforcement.8
*232¶ 176. Accordingly, I conclude, as I began, by stating that it would benefit both juveniles and law enforcement if the legislature were to enact the tape *233recording requirements set out in the majority opinion. My sole concern is that in stretching our constitutional powers to achieve a goal I believe to be good for Wisconsin, we set up a mechanism without checks and balances. Over the long term, judicial restraint better serves the people of Wisconsin than the concentration of power the majority opinion employs. As Justice Robert H. Jackson said, "the validity of a [principle] does not depend on whose ox it gores." Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 525 (1953). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that requires tape recording of the questioning of juveniles and mandates suppression absent the required recording.
¶ 177. I am authorized to state that Justice JON E WILCOX joins the discussion of Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution in this concurrence and dissent.

 For example, it has long been held that in order to be admitted at trial, a defendant's confession must be voluntary. State v. Hunt, 53 Wis. 2d 734, 740, 193 N.W.2d 858 (1972); Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 (1963). The rule requiring suppression of involuntary confessions is grounded in a defendant's due process right to a fair trial, Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 441 (1974), and linked to the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 461 (1966), as well as the mirror of the Fifth Amendment in Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, State v. Hanson, 136 Wis. 2d 195, 211, 401 N.W.2d 771 (1987). Suppression is also bottomed in the concept that law enforcement *223personnel must obey the law, even as they enforce it. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 293 (1991).
In Miranda, the United States Supreme Court instituted measures designed "to permit a full opportunity [for those in custody] to exercise the privilege against self-incrimination." Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467. The Court deemed the Miranda protocols necessary for "any assurance of real understanding and intelligent exercise of the privilege [against self-incrimination]." Id. at 469. In the present case, the majority does not claim the recording requirement is necessary to protect suspects' constitutional rights, but rather mandates recording because it deems the procedure beneficial.

 State v. Jennings, 2002 WI 44, 252 Wis. 2d 228, 647 N.W.2d 142, repeats the same language from State ex rel. Fourth National Bank of Philadelphia v. Johnson, 103 Wis. 591, 79 N.W. 1081 (1899), but Jennings declined to use it to stretch the *224court's supervisory power to require the court of appeals to certify cases in which the court of appeals is faced with a direct conflict between a decision of the United States Supreme Court and a decision of this court on a question of federal law. Jennings, 252 Wis. 2d 228, ¶¶ 13-16.

 Article VII, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution states:
(1) The supreme court shall have superintending and administrative authority over all courts.
(2) The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over all courts and may hear original actions and proceedings. The supreme court may issue all writs necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.
(3) The supreme court may review judgments and orders of the court of appeals, may remove cases from the court of appeals and may accept cases on certification by the court of appeals.

 In 1899 when Johnson was decided, Article VII, Section 3 provided: "the supreme court shall have a general superintending control over all inferior courts." Id. at 611.

 In my view, as explained herein, the court does not have the power to cause the same requirement by rule, even if its rule-making procedures were followed.

 In Guthrie v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 111 Wis. 2d 447, 331 N.W.2d 331 (1983), we did establish a *227per se rule that a judge in administrative proceedings must disqualify himself or herself, if the judge had acted as counsel for one of the parties in the same action or proceeding. Id. at 458. However, we did so because a fundamental tenet of due process is a decision maker who is, and appears to be, impartial. Id. at 457-58.

 This is not the first time this term that the court has done so. In March, as a result of a rule-making petition, the court "repealed" the frivolous action statute, Wis. Stat. § 814.025, a substantive rule enacted by the legislature, which was not unconstitutional. Supreme Court Order No. 03-06, effective July 1, 2005, 2005 WI 38,_Wis. 2d_.

 The following cases are listed in the order in which they are mentioned in the Chief Justice's concurrence. Several have nothing to do with Article VII, Section 3 and several examine only whether the court has original jurisdiction in given circumstances: State ex rel. Friedrich v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 192 Wis. 2d 1, 531 N.W.2d 32 (1995) (addressing whether the rates set for court-appointed attorneys must be those set by the supreme court or those set by statute; Friedrich never mentions Article VII, Section 3); Arneson v. Jezwinski, 206 Wis. 2d 217, 556 N.W.2d 721 (1996) (concluding that the supreme court should use its Article VII, Section 3 power to require the court of appeals to grant all petitions for interlocutory appeal where a claim of qualified immunity had been denied in the circuit court); State ex rel. Hass v. Wis. Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128, 248 Wis. 2d 634, 636 N.W.2d 707 (concluding that the supreme court should not use its Article VII, Section 3 power to require the court of appeals to grant all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court has denied a defense that the action before the court is barred by a final federal adjudication); State v. Jennings, 2002 WI 44, 252 Wis. 2d 228, 647 N.W.2d 142 (concluding that the supreme court should not use its Article VII, Section 3 power to require the court of appeals to certify all appeals where a prior decision of this court appears to conflict with United States Supreme Court precedent); State ex rel. Reynolds v. County Court of Kenosha County, 11 Wis. 2d 560, 105 N.W.2d 876 (1960) (concluding that the supreme court has superintending power under Article VII, Section 3 to restrain the county court of Kenosha County from interfering with the liberty of the sheriff and the county purchasing agent because of matters arising out of a proceeding in that court); Brand v. Milwaukee County, 251 Wis. 531, 30 N.W.2d 238 (1947) (concluding that no appeal lies from an order made by a judge in a special proceeding under Ch. 51; Brand did not involve the superintending authority of the court); Johnson (concluding that the exercise of the supreme court's superin*232tending power over "inferior courts" was not limited to the use of the specific writs listed in Article VII, Section 3); In re Kading, 70 Wis. 2d 508, 235 N.W.2d 409, 238 N.W.2d 63, 239 N.W.2d 297 (1975) (concluding the supreme court has the authority under Article VII, Section 3 to require a judge to file a financial disclosure statement); In re Phelan, 225 Wis. 314, 274 N.W. 411 (1937) (concluding that the supreme court would issue a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings in the circuit court for Rock County because of a similar action involving the same controversy and the same parties pending in federal court); McEwen v. Pierce County, 90 Wis. 2d 256, 279 N.W.2d 469 (1979) (concluding even though a circuit court order was not appealable, the supreme court's superintending authority over all courts permits it to reach the merits of the circuit court's decision); The Attorney General v. Blossom, 1 Wis. 277 [*317] (1853) (concluding the supreme court had original jurisdiction to issue the writs listed in Article VII, Section 3, including quo warranto); The Attorney General v. Chi. & N.W. Ry. Co., 35 Wis. 425 (1874) (concluding the supreme court had original jurisdiction to entertain an action by the attorney general to issue an injunction against railroad companies); State ex rel. Umbreit v. Helms, 136 Wis. 432, 118 N.W. 158 (1908) (denying the issuance of a supervisory writ to a trial court that dismissed a criminal complaint because there was another adequate remedy); Seiler v. State, 112 Wis. 293, 87 N.W. 1072 (1901) (concluding that the superintending power of the supreme court is limited to controlling other state courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction); In re Integration of the Bar, 249 Wis. 523, 25 N.W.2d 500 (1946) (concluding the State Bar Association of Wisconsin should not be integrated; Article VII, Section 3 is not mentioned); In re Promulgation of a Code of Judicial Ethics, 36 Wis. 2d 252, 153 N.W.2d 873, 155 N.W.2d 565 (1967) (concluding that the supreme court had inherent and implied supervisory powers sufficient to enact a code of judicial ethics).