Court Opinion

ID: 9533539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:32:31.369808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:05.092379
License: Public Domain

HEFFEENAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
(concurring). I concur in the result because I believe the effect of any fourth amendment violation in this case was so attenuated so as to be harmless. The state concedes that there was no probable cause to justify a seizure of Kramar at his home. The question is whether there was a seizure.
It is apparent to me that there was a seizure in this case. Kramar was in police custody, for fourth amendment purposes, from the time he was taken to the police station for questioning. Kramar was sixteen years of age at the time, had low intelligence and had been placed in a school program for emotionally disturbed children. Nevertheless, the test of police custody is objective: whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe that he was free to leave. State v. Koput, 142 Wis. 2d 370, 380, 418 N.W.2d 804 (1988).
The police in this case spent twenty to thirty minutes convincing Kramar’s parents that they should permit Kramar to be taken to the station. Kramar’s *796parents called him upstairs and directed him to go with the police. No one asked Kramar whether he wanted to go. Kramar was patted down before he got into the police car. During the ride, Kramar was informed that, when they arrived at the station, he would be informed of his rights against self-incrimination and a gunpowder test would be performed on his hands. At the station, Kramar was read his rights, the gunpowder test was performed (without his permission), and police questioning commenced. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that he was under arrest. I therefore conclude that this case presents a seizure without probable cause, a violation of the fourth amendment.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICES ABRA-HAMSON and BABLITCH join in this concurrence.