Court Opinion

ID: 9672267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:51:44.261675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:15.116109
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.
(dissenting). In approving the use of physical evidence gleaned during a so-called “custody search,” the court has watered down the basic right against unreasonable search and seizure. Under the guise of taking an accused’s property into protective custody, the police, by this decision, are authorized to seek out evidence which would otherwise be inviolate. Cf. Barnes v. State (1964), 25 Wis. (2d) 116, 126, 130 N. W. (2d) 264.
In the case at bar, an inventory was made of the accused’s possessions just before she was placed in a cell. There is no evidence that the material in question was inventoried or that it was even observed at the time the inventory was made. Subsequently, however, a second police officer, who had been investigating the suspected crime, scrutinized Mrs. Stevens’ property and observed the material at the bottom of her purse. The latter search had nothing to do with the efficient operation of the jail, nor was it designed to protect Mrs. Stevens’ possessions when she was placed in the cell.
In my opinion, if a custody search is to be an approved method of obtaining admissible evidence, the standards surrounding it must be far more precisely defined than has been done in the instant case.