Court Opinion

ID: 9679338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:49:35.877508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:12.677127
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(concurring). I agree with the court that the decision of the court of appeals and judgment of conviction should be reversed. I write to state my disagreement with the conclusion of the majority opinion and concurring opinion that a charge of misconduct in office pursuant to secs. 968.10 and 946.12(2), Stats.,1 is a permissible charge for a police officer enter*324ing a premise to conduct a search without a search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. This conclusion assumes the officer had no other purpose for the entry than to conduct a search. The majority writes that an over-zealous entry and search of a premise are grounds for a charge of misconduct in public office.
1 am of the opinion that a determination of whether an officer did not have consent pursuant to sec. 968.10, Stats., or consent or exigent circumstances pursuant to the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution2 or Article I, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution3 *325is either a constitutional fact or conclusion determinable by a judge, not a jury.
For a charge of misconduct in office due to an officer’s entry knowingly without legal authority, the judge would have to make a threshold legal determination that the officer’s entry into the premises was without lawful authority either by finding there was no valid search warrant, consent or exigent circumstances. The judge would then have to inform the jury that it must accept that the entry was without lawful authority and that it must then decide whether the officer knew at the time of his entry he did not have lawful authority. This would be an anomaly in Wisconsin criminal practice. We do not allow the judge to comment in criminal cases to the jury on the proof of a fact necessary for the jury to make a decision. The judge would already have determined it was an unreasonable entry and would inform the jury of that conclusion and then the jury would decide whether the unreasonable act was done knowingly. In other criminal prosecutions the jury is instructed as to what the unlawful act is in law and then the jury must apply the facts of the case to that law to determine guilt or innocence. However, the judge does not tell the jury the defendant did an unlawful act as decided by the judge and it must only determine intent. The prejudice to the defendant in the charge of misconduct in office would be overwhelming since the jury would be told by the judge the officer’s acts were as a matter of law contrary to the property owner’s rights.
I would find an unlawful search by an officer does not serve as the foundation for a charge of misconduct *326in office. There are sufficient sanctions imposed on officers for unlawful searches as described in the majority’s opinion. I would not further stifle police officers’ investigative duties by subjecting them to criminal sanctions under the crime misconduct in public office for a search, even if the proof could be accepted by the jury as showing the officer at the time of the entry had reason to believe he did not have a search warrant, exigent circumstances or consent.
With the law of search and seizure changing periodically due to the makeup of the United States Supreme Court membership, what is known by specialist attorneys and judges today in the criminal law as unlawful or unreasonable may not remain unlawful or unreasonable in the future. Many “experts” were surprised and upset by that Court’s decision in 1984 in United States v. Leon, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984), that good faith by an officer in executing an invalid search warrant makes the search a lawful one. What is a lawful entry and search has been a changing subject in the law and officers should not be criminally liable in a charge of misconduct in office for what is subsequently determined by a judge to be an unlawful entry, even though the officers may have had reason to believe at the time of the entry that it was unlawful or unreasonable.
I would find that a police officer’s entry into premises, even if later found to have been unlawful or unreasonable pursuant to constitutional law, does not serve as a foundation for a charge of misconduct in office. If the officer enters for a different purpose than a search, such as to commit a theft or other felony, then he could be prosecuted for the appropriate law violation as any other person.

 Sec. 968.10, Stats., provides:
“968.10 Searches and seizures; when authorized. A search of a person, object or place may be made and things may be seized when the search is made:
“(1) Incident to a lawful arrest;
“(2) With consent;
“(3) Pursuant to a valid search warrant;
“(4) With' the authority and within the scope of a right of lawful inspection;
“(5) Pursuant to a search during an authorized temporary questioning as provided in s. 968.25; or
“(6) As otherwise authorized by law.”
Sec. 946.12, Stats., provides:
“946.12 Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employe who does any of the following is guilty of a Class E felony:
*324“(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of his office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or
“(2) In his capacity as such officer or employe, does an act which he knows is in excess of his lawful authority or which he knows he is forbidden by law to do in his official capacity; or
“(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in his capacity as such officer or employe exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of his office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for himself or another; or
“(4) In his capacity as such officer or employe, makes an entry in an account or record book or return, certificate, report or statement which in a material respect he intentionally falsifies; or
“(5) Under color of his office or employment, intentionally solicits or accepts for the performance of any service or duty anything of value which he knows is greater or less than is fixed by law.”

 Article IV of the United States Constitution provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 Article I, sec. 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides:
“Searches and seizures. Section 11. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against *325unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”