Court Opinion

ID: 9707650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:17:39.314108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.280446
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). Although I favor the severability rule because it is consistent with the particularity requirement of the fourth amendment and the purposes of the exclusionary rule, I conclude that the application of the severability rule in combination with the plain view rule is inappropriate in this case. I would affirm the circuit court’s suppression order.
The majority reverses the suppression order holding (1) that the plain view doctrine is applicable to a severable warrant when the evidence is discovered by an officer who is not actually searching for objects within the purpose for which the search was initiated; and (2) that Deputy Dassow articulated “the existence of a reasonable suspicion” that the GE television set was “connected with criminal activity,” supra, p. 464. I dissent.
I.
Although the majority never labels its justification for the recording of the serial number a plain view analysis, it is applying that analysis in this case. The majority says that the warrant can be severed and rendered valid in order for the majority to conclude that “the officers were rightfully in the kitchen under the authority of that warrant.” Supra, p. 458. See also supra, p. 466. According to the majority, once the police intrusion and presence in the kitchen are lawful, the plain view doctrine comes into play to allow inspection of the GE television set.
*470Under the plain view doctrine, it is permissible for police officers who have a right to be in the place where they are when they observe an item to seize the item although it is not set forth in a warrant if it is in plain view and they have probable cause to believe the item is a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime. Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457, 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977) ; 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure secs. 4.6(f), p. 112, 4.11(c) (1978).
By allowing the recording of the serial number of the television set, the majority is adopting an adaptation of the plain view doctrine to allow inspection — but not seizure — of an item in plain view when the officers do not have probable cause but have a reasonable suspicion based on prior knowledge to believe that the item is a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime. 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 4.11(c) (1978). Supra, pp. 460-467.
This adaptation of the plain view doctrine should be subject to the same restrictions as the traditional plain view doctrine. This court has set forth four requirements for the application of the plain view doctrine:
“‘(1) the evidence is discovered in the course of a lawful search, whether initiated by a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, circumstances justifying a lawful warrantless search, or circumstances justifying a lawful warrantless arrest;
“(2) the evidence in itself or in itself with facts known to the officer prior to the search, but without the necessity of subsequent development of additional facts, provides a connection between the evidence and criminal activity;
“(3) the evidence is discovered in the physical area properly searchable within the purposes for which the search was initiated, and
“(4) the evidence is discovered while the officer is actually searching for objects within the purpose for
*471which the search was initiated.’ ” Myers v. State, 60 Wis. 2d 248, 261, 208 N.W.2d 311 (1973), quoting United States v. McDonnell, 315 F. Supp. 152, 168 (D.C. Neb. 1970). See also State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis. 2d 514, 535, 302 N.W.2d 810 (1981), Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457, 464, n. 3, 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977).
Assuming arguendo that the plain view doctrine should be applied to cases in which warrants are severed,1 I conclude the fourth requirement of the plain view doctrine set forth above is not met in this case; that is, the evidence must be discovered while the officer is actually *472searching- for objects within the purpose for which the search was initiated. This requirement, which prevents abuses of the plain view doctrine, was not met in this case. Taylor County Deputy Dassow, who saw the television set and recorded its serial number, was not actually searching for any items in the warrant. He was engaged at all times in making an inventory of 109 items, none of which was related to the items listed in the warrant, in the defendant’s home (from basement to attic) and in outlying buildings.
The circuit court, in its thoughtful written decision, expressly found that at all relevant times Deputy Dassow was not actually looking for the items listed in the warrant and that he was engaging in a general search. The circuit court found as follows:
“I find that the testimony of Deputy Dassow to be a frank admission that he considered the Chippewa County search warrant as his legal entry to the Noll residence to make a search for whatever leads he could find relating to other thefts or burglaries. Deputy Dassow, in effect, testified that he had as much time to look for other evidence of thefts as the Chippewa County officer would give him. Dassow felt that once Deputy Glass called out to the other officers, that the items on the Chippewa County warrant had been located, then and only then did the Taylor County officers have to terminate their search. . . . [T]he Taylor County officers were not the least bit interested in solving the potential theft of items from the Webb auction, but rather wanted to inventory as many identifiable items as they could in an attempt to solve numerous other break-ins and burglaries.”
The majority did not and cannot hold this finding clearly erroneous, sec. 805.17(2), Stats. 1981-82. The majority ignores the import of the finding by saying that since the warrant authorized officers to be in the kitchen the “subjective desire” of the Taylor county officers is irrelevant. Supra, p. 457.
*473By focusing on the warrant’s justification for the Taylor county officers’ being in the kitchen, and thus dismissing as irrelevant their subjective intent, the majority avoids the determinative question of whether the Taylor county officers were actually searching for objects listed in the warrant.
Our cases have consistently held that in order for evidence seized under the plain view doctrine to be admissible, the officers must actually be looking for objects within the purpose for which the search was initiated when the object in plain view is discovered. And according to our cases, determination of this “actual search” requirement may involve an inquiry into the subjective motivation, intent, or desires of the officers as well as the legal justification for the officer’s presence or a seizure. Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457, 251 N.W.2d 461 (1977).
The question of what effect, if any, the subjective motivation of any officer should have in excluding evidence is a difficult one and the subject of ongoing discussion and debate by courts and commentators.2 I agree that subjective motivation, intent, or desire, when coupled with valid legal justification for the officer’s presence or a seizure, may be irrelevant in certain cases in determining the admissibility of evidence. The majority’s cursory dismissal of the officers’ “subjective desire” in this case is inadequate treatment of this complex issue and our prior case law.
The record is clear in this case that Chippewa County Officer Glass was present to execute the warrant; any desire he might have had to find stolen goods not listed in the warrant probably would be irrelevant if he had seen the goods while he was actually searching for the *474items listed in the warrant. In contrast the Taylor county officers, as demonstrated by both their “subjective desires” and their behavior, were not present to execute the warrant. The Taylor county officers never actually searched for the items listed in the warrant. They were making an inventory of goods that might have been stolen. Their search was independent of the lawful one conducted by Officer Glass under the severable warrant. What we have in this case is really two searches-one by Officer Glass and the other by the Taylor county officers.3 Analyzing the case in this way, I conclude that the search by the Taylor County officers was without the benefit of a warrant and was without probable cause thereby violating article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
II.
Even if I were to agree with the majority that Deputy Dassow was engaged in a lawful search and within the protection of the plain view doctrine, I would affirm the circuit court’s suppression order on the ground that the second requirement of the plain view doctrine was not met. The majority permits an officer to inspect and record serial numbers of items found in plain view if the officer at the time of the search has an “objectively based, articulable suspicion” that the item “was connected with the crime.” Supra, p. 464. The majority *475concludes that this minimal intrusion does not violate the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The majority finds that Deputy Dassow had a reasonable suspicion at the time he first saw the GE television set that it was the one stolen from the Reinke burglary. The majority acknowledges that the wisdom of hindsight plays no role in the test for reasonable suspicion. Supra, p. 466.
The majority quotes Deputy Dassow’s testimony at Supra, p. 447, as if it demonstrated a clear objective suspicion based on knowledge prior to the search. In fact, the testimony is ambiguous. The deputy does not expressly state that prior to his entry into the home he knew that a GE television set had been taken from the Reinke home. The inference from other testimony in the record was that the Taylor county officers knew there had been burglaries in the county and in neighboring counties but that the officers were not familiar with the objects stolen. After the officers left the defendant’s home, the 109-item inventory was compared with burglary complaints to discover the stolen items.
The interpretation of Deputy Dassow’s testimony and the deputy’s credibility were questions for the circuit court, sec. 805.17 (2), Stats. 1981-82, and the circuit court specifically found that when Deputy Dassow entered the home he did not know what objects had been stolen from neighboring homes. The circuit court expressly found that it was not until after the inventory was made and compared with the complaints that Deputy Dassow knew what items inventoried had been stolen. The circuit court’s clearly stated finding is as follows:
“Furthermore, the second criteria which would permit an officer to seize any property which is evidence of a *476crime,4 whether or not different from the crime by which the search was prompted, is that the evidence itself (or with facts known to the officer prior to the search) (emphasis in original) must provide a connection between the evidence and criminal activity. According to the record, Dassow had a number of unsolved burglaries in Taylor County and was aware of similar breakins in adjoining counties, but it is fairly clear that as he conducted the inventory he had no prior knowledge of what items had been stolen in the other burglaries. He simply made a list of as many easily-tracable items as he could find and then subsequently (emphasis in original) went through open burglary files in an attempt to match the inventory to the file information.”
This court is bound by the circuit court’s finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. The majority did not— and cannot — hold that the circuit court’s finding is clearly erroneous. After adopting the reasonable suspicion test, supra, pp. 464-466, the majority, contrary to the circuit court’s finding of facts, concludes that when he saw the television set “Deputy Dassow had a reasonable suspicion that the television was stolen based on his recollection that a similar set had been taken in the Reinke burglary.” Supra, p. 466. There is no basis in fact for this conclusion; indeed, it is contrary to the trial court’s finding of facts.
Relying on the findings of the circuit court, I conclude that when he saw the television set Deputy Dassow did not have an “objectively based, articulable suspicion” that the television set “was connected with the crime.” Therefore, the television set cannot be the basis of the subsequent search warrant.
The ultimate standard under the constitution is the reasonableness of the search or seizure in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Because I conclude this standard was not met in this case, I would affirm *477the circuit court’s order suppressing the evidence. I am authorized to state that Justice William Bablitch joins in this dissent.

 Only one case cited by the majority applies the plain view doctrine to a severable warrant. In State v. Sagner, 12 Or. App. 459, 606 P.2d 510 (1973), the court held that the warrant was s werable and that evidence regarding- a television set seized in plain view pursuant to probable cause was admissible because it was seized in the course of the search for the items listed in the valid portion of the severable warrant. The Oregon court reluctantly adhered to the trial court’s finding as to the timing of the discovery of the television set, noting that “. . . the record is somewhat confused on that point.” Id. at 472.
The problem of engrafting the plain view doctrine onto the sev-erability rule is the difficulty of applying the doctrine to the facts of particular cases. Under the plain view doctrine the officer must be lawfully present when the object in plain view is seized. Where the search warrant must be severed because it is partially valid and partially invalid, the officer’s presence in the home is valid when executing the valid portion of the warrant and invalid when executing the invalid portion of the warrant. Applying the plain view doctrine to an item seized or inspected in a search pursuant to a severable warrant imposes on the trial court the difficult task of determining whether the object in plain view was seized or inspected during the execution of the valid or the invalid portion of the warrant.
In United States v. Apker, 705 F.2d 293, 307-308 (8th Cir. 1983), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the severability rule but expressly refused to combine it with the plain view doctrine because the court was concerned about resulting difficult factual determinations. The Apker court stated that “this expansion of the severance rule . . . could lead to what in effect would be a general warrant.” Id. at 308.

 Compare, e.g., 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 1.2(g) (1983 Supp.); 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 4.11(e) (1978); Burk-off, Bad Faith Searches, 57 N.Y.U. L. Kev. 70 (1982).

 Unfortunately it is not clear from the record whether it was the practice of the Taylor county officers to accompany officers from another county who have a search warrant to be executed in Taylor county. If it were not, the departure from the accepted way of handling such cases may be considered in determining whether the officer’s conduct was arbitrary and violative of the constitution. 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure sec. 1.2(g), p. 26 (1983 Pocket Part); Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment, 58 Minn. L. Rev. 349, 417 (1974).

 This second criterion referred to in the circuit court’s finding is the second factor set forth in the Myers case, quoted at p. 470.