Court Opinion

ID: 9721361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:57:19.814675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:25.173035
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 48. (dissenting). I agree with the majority's standard which requires the suppression of witnesses' statements when they are coerced through egregious police misconduct such that the statements are rendered unreliable as a matter of law, while considering the totality of the circumstances. Majority op. at ¶ 46.
¶ 49. However, it is impossible for me to reconcile the enunciated standard with the failure of the majority to remand given the totality of the circumstances present. This does not strike me as a close case at all. As a result, lower courts will ask, with some degree of confusion, if these facts do not do it, what does?
*52¶ 50. I conclude that this case should, at the very-least, be remanded. The record raises serious questions as to the interrogation methods employed during the intake conference and immediately thereafter. A determination on whether the police conduct was egregious involves matters of credibility that only a circuit judge can determine at an evidentiary hearing. Further, the circuit court must examine the totality of the circumstances when making its determination. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to the mandate of the majority opinion.1
¶ 51. The following sequence of events is telling. On March 10, 1997, Tisha's baby is born. On March 12, 1997, the baby is taken from Tisha and placed in a foster home after Tisha repeatedly refuses to "cooperate" with the police. The next day, Tisha "cooperates" with the police by answering questions that implicate Samuel with respect to her sexual relationship with Samuel. Tisha's baby is returned to her on March 14, 1997.
¶ 52. No one denies that Tisha was told she must cooperate with the police. But cooperate how? Was it reasonable for Tisha to believe that she had to implicate Samuel or lose her baby forever? The circuit court never reached this determination. The circuit court merely determined that Samuel had no standing to raise an objection to the admission of Tisha's statement. *53At the very least, this case should go back for an evidentiary hearing following the procedural standards adopted by the majority from State v. Velez, 224 Wis. 2d 1, 589 N.W.2d 9 (1999). See majority op. at ¶¶ 33-39.
¶ 53. There is more in this record, none of which has been challenged, to support my view that Samuel has met his burden in producing evidence to show egregious conduct sufficient to force an evidentiary hearing. In particular, David Keck, Tisha's attorney, testified that it was his personal impression that Tisha had to give a statement to police regarding the unlawful sexual relationship with Samuel in order to get her baby back. In addition, Peter L., Tisha's father, testified that he spoke with a sexual abuse investigator with the Department of Social Services and was told that the police needed to know where and when Tisha and Samuel had sex. Peter gave this information to Tisha. Finally, Catherine Steltzer, Peter's girlfriend, testified that she was told they would consider giving the baby to Tisha if she cooperated. It was her impression that the baby was being used as a pawn and that this was blackmail.
¶ 54. If in fact Tisha was threatened with the loss of her baby unless she confessed to an unlawful sexual relationship with Samuel, such threats, implicit or explicit, constitute egregious police conduct. This record contains much evidence, none of it challenged, that leads to that conclusion. I would send it back for the circuit court's determination of the facts and conclusions.
¶ 55. I therefore respectfully dissent.

 This dissent did not "overlook," as stated in the majority opinion's response to the dissent, that the circuit court has "already opined that the statements were not the product of police coercion." Majority op. at ¶ 41 n. 6. The circuit court issued that opinion without the benefit of the new standard enunciated in the majority opinion. The circuit court could hardly apply a standard that was not even in existence at the time it so opined.