Court Opinion

ID: 9738257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:47:00.709574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.921636
License: Public Domain

ANNETTE KINGSLAND ZIEGLER, J.
¶ 71. (concurring). I join the majority opinion's conclusion that the evidence here must be suppressed, see majority op., ¶ 32, but my conclusion is based on the fact that this warrant was per se void ab initio. This warrant was per se void ab initio because the circuit court absolutely lacked the authority to issue this warrant, regardless of the presentence investigation (PSI) author's request. *559See id., ¶ 7. That is, the circuit court issued what purported to be a civil bench warrant in a criminal case on the basis that the PSI author informed the court that Hess failed to stay and complete a PSI interview. However, the circuit court had never previously ordered Hess to participate in that interview, and no statute or other authority requires a defendant to participate in such an interview. I write separately to emphasize that in this case, the circuit court's complete lack of authority to issue this warrant under these circumstances is most akin to the magistrate's lack of authority to issue the search warrant in State v. Kriegbaum, 194 Wis. 229, 232, 215 N.W. 896 (1927), and the court commissioners' lack of authority to issue the search warrants in State v. Loney, 110 Wis. 2d 256, 260, 328 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1982), and State v. Grawien, 123 Wis. 2d 428, 430-31, 367 N.W.2d 816 (Ct. App. 1985). In those cases, the remedy was to exclude the evidence obtained based on the warrants that were per se void ab initio. See Kriegbaum, 194 Wis. at 232; Loney, 110 Wis. 2d at 260; Grawien, 123 Wis. 2d at 433.
¶ 72. I continue to agree with the application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule regarding the defective warrants in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (search warrant unsupported by probable cause), and State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625 (affidavit submitted in support of search warrant did not justify authorizing a no-knock entry).
¶ 73. While a per se void ab initio warrant is always defective, a defective warrant is not always per se void ab initio. The line must be drawn somewhere. I draw it in a case such as this one, in which the warrant is not just defective, but rather, it is per se void ab initio. "Leon could not have been intended to save a warrant that was per se invalid." United States v. Neering, 194 F. *560Supp. 2d 620, 627 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing United States v. Scott, 260 F.3d 512, 515 (6th Cir. 2001)).
¶ 74. For the foregoing reason, I respectfully concur.