Court Opinion

ID: 9714725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:44:16.834705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:28.164397
License: Public Domain

*258Robert W. Hansen, J.
(dissenting). As it must,1 the written complaint here informed the defendant of the exact nature of the charge brought against him. As it may,2 it used the language of the statute in doing so. At the hearing, as he should,3 the magistrate determined the basis of the arresting officer’s knowledge and the reliability of his informers. Considered together, as they should be under the language of a decision I believe should not be withdrawn,4 the written complaint and hearing transcript clearly and completely established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant charging defendant with possession of marijuana for smoking purposes. I would affirm.

 “. . . the words used in the complaint are a clear and complete description of exactly what the defendant is alleged to have done. He is informed of the exact nature of the charge against him, and that is a primary purpose of the written complaint in criminal cases.” State ex rel. Evanow v. Seraphim (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 223, 229, 161 N. W. 2d 369.

 . . relator complains that statements in the complaint as to the offense committed ‘are made in the language of the statute with the addition of the time and place of the alleged offense.’ The statute involved . . . sets forth in language any lay person can understand what the crime of burglary involves. We see no objection to the use of statutory language where it adequately states exactly what the defendant is charged with doing.” Ibid.

 “This does not limit the right of the magistrate to ask questions and receive answers at the hearing before him to satisfy himself that probable cause does exist.” Id. at page 226.

 “The information presented to the magistrate by the complaint, affidavit, or testimony must be sufficient for him to conclude that ‘the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal process.’” State ex rel. Cullen v. Ceci (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 432, 444, 173 N. W. 2d 176. [Emphasis supplied.]