Court Opinion

ID: 9695338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:15:47.310051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.895760
License: Public Domain

PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, J.
155. (dissenting). We are asked to review a court of appeals decision reversing the circuit court's order (1) suppressing bank records that were subpoenaed and produced without a finding of probable cause, which Wis. Stat. § 968.135 (2005-06)1 requires, and (2) suppressing Michelle Popenhagen's subsequent incriminating statements.
*672¶ 156. I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude that controlling precedent, as established more than 20 years ago by the appellate courts of this state, precludes suppressing Popenhagen's bank records and her subsequent incriminating statements. I reach this conclusion because: (1) Wis. Stat. § 968.135 does not authorize the suppression of Popenhagen's bank records as a remedy for the circuit court's failure to find probable cause that the bank records were linked to the commission of a crime; and (2) Popen-hagen has no privacy right in her bank records under either the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals decision that overturned the circuit court's suppression of evidence, and I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion that upholds suppression of Popenhagen's bank records and her subsequent incriminating statements.
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 157. While Popenhagen was an employee of Save-More Foods in Minocqua, the owner, Brian Krue-ger, suspected that she was stealing from the store. Krueger reported to the Minocqua Police Department that Popenhagen cashed checks at the store that she drew on accounts containing insufficient funds. Krue-ger also alleged that Popenhagen had stolen money from the store's automated teller machine. According to the criminal complaint and the attached police reports, it is alleged that Popenhagen stole approximately $29,000 from her employer.
¶ 158. To further their investigation of the matter, the Minocqua Police sought to obtain Popenhagen's bank records through criminal subpoenas under Wis. *673Stat. § 968.135. To that end, in compliance with § 968.135, a police officer completed an affidavit showing probable cause that the records sought were linked to the commission of a crime. However, when the requests for the subpoenas were made, the affidavit showing probable cause apparently was not presented to the two judges who issued the subpoenas.2
¶ 159. All three banks complied with the subpoenas by delivering Popenhagen's bank statements, deposit slips and cancelled checks to the Oneida Police Department. Oneida police officers then interviewed Popen-hagen. She initially denied that she had stolen money from Save-More, but after the police confronted Popen-hagen with her bank records, which revealed that her deposit amounts closely corresponded to amounts missing from Save-More, she made several incriminating statements.3
¶ 160. Popenhagen was charged with theft of more than $10,000, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 943.20(l)(b) and (3)(c). In a pretrial motion, she moved to suppress both her bank records and her incriminating statements. The circuit court granted her motion to suppress, ruling that *674the State obtained her bank records in violation of Popenhagen's federal and state constitutional right of privacy and in violation of Wis. Stat. § 968.135.
¶ 161. The State appealed the circuit court's decision, and in a two-to-one decision, the court of appeals reversed. The majority concluded that neither the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution nor Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution accorded Popenhagen a right of privacy in her bank records; and therefore, it was error to suppress them. In addition, although the issuance of subpoenas without a finding of probable cause conflicts with the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 968.135, the court of appeals ruled that suppression was not proper because § 968.135 does not authorize suppression as a remedy, as Wisconsin precedent requires.
¶ 162. On review before this court, Popenhagen advances four arguments to support her assertion that her bank records and her incriminating statements must be suppressed. First, Popenhagen argues that because Wis. Stat. § 968.135 requires a finding of probable cause before a subpoena is issued thereunder, she has a statutory "expectation of privacy" in her bank records which was violated when these subpoenas were issued. Second, Popenhagen contends that the issuance of the subpoenas without a finding of probable cause is a misuse of process that necessitates suppressing her bank records and incriminating statements. Third, she contends that she has a Fourth Amendment right of privacy in her bank records because the holding of United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), is no longer good law. Fourth, she encourages this court to interpret Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution independently of Fourth Amendment interpretations, and to hold that there is a constitutional right of privacy in bank records under the *675Wisconsin Constitution. The majority opinion reverses the court of appeals and upholds the suppression of evidence based on Popenhagen's first contention.4
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
¶ 163. Resolution of this case requires the court to interpret Wis. Stat. § 968.135, as well as the federal and state constitutions. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, ¶ 4, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495. We also review independently questions of constitutional interpretation. Schilling v. Crime Victims Rights Bd., 2005 WI 17, ¶ 12, 278 Wis. 2d 216, 692 N.W.2d 623. Whether to grant a motion to suppress evidence is a discretionary determination of the circuit court. State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 68, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1997). Therefore, we will overturn an evidentiary decision of the circuit court only if that court erroneously exercised its discretion. Id. at 69.
B. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.135
1. Suppression precedent
¶ 164. Judges formulated the discretionary remedy of suppression to deter unreasonable or bad-faith police conduct that resulted in the violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482 (1976). Suppression is not automatically accorded as a remedy, even when a constitutional right has been impaired; rather, suppression of evidence is *676weighed against "depriving the court or jury of relevant evidence, endangering society, and allowing the guilty to go free." State v. Verkuylen, 120 Wis. 2d 59, 60-61, 352 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1984).
¶ 165. The majority opinion concludes that Popenhagen is entitled to suppression of the bank records and her subsequent incriminating statements under Wis. Stat. § 968.135, even though there was no unreasonable or bad-faith police conduct and even though § 968.135 does not expressly authorize the remedy of suppression when a subpoena was issued without a finding of probable cause.5 In so concluding, the majority opinion effects an enormous change in the law of the state of Wisconsin that expands the rights of criminal defendants at the expense of effective prosecutions. It does so by overruling more than 20 years of precedent of this court and of the court of appeals.6 This is so because for more than 20 years, suppression could be considered as a remedy only when a constitutional right was violated or a statute specifically authorized suppression as a remedy for the statutory violation. See, e.g., State v. Noble, 2002 WI 64, ¶ 13, 253 Wis. 2d 206, 646 N.W.2d 38 (concluding that suppression of Noble's testimony was not required because the violation "during the John Doe proceeding did not amount to either a constitutional violation or a statutory violation for *677which suppression is provided as a remedy"); State v. Raflik, 2001 WI 129, ¶ 15, 248 Wis. 2d 593, 636 N.W.2d 690 (concluding that "[suppression is only required when evidence has been obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights ... or if a statute specifically provides for the suppression remedy"); State v. Cash, 2004 WI App 63, ¶ 30, 271 Wis. 2d 451, 677 N.W.2d 709 (concluding that "[Wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence is to be suppressed only where the evidence was obtained in violation of an individual's constitutional rights or in violation of a statute that expressly requires suppression as a sanction") (emphasis in Cash); State v. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, ¶ 24, 277 Wis. 2d 780, 691 N.W.2d 369 (concluding that if suppression is to be available for a statutory violation, "the remedy sought for [a] statutory violation [must] be expressed in the relevant statute"); State v. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, ¶ 8, 260 Wis. 2d 592, 659 N.W.2d 403 (concluding that " [suppression of evidence is only required when evidence has been obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights, or if a statute specifically provides for the suppression remedy"); State v. Jackowski, 2001 WI App 187, ¶ 17, 247 Wis. 2d 430, 633 N.W.2d 649 (concluding that "the exclusionary rule is applicable in civil and criminal proceedings only where the evidence sought to be excluded was obtained in violation of a constitutional right or a statute that specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction"); State ex rel. Peckham v. Krenke, 229 Wis. 2d 778, 787, 601 N.W.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1999) (concluding that "wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence is to be suppressed only where the evidence was obtained in violation of an individual's constitutional rights or in violation of a statute that expressly requires suppression as a sanction"); *678Verkuylen, 120 Wis. 2d at 61 (concluding that "[suppression is therefore required only upon a showing that evidence was obtained in violation of a constitutional right... or when a statute specifically requires suppression of illegally obtained evidence").
¶ 166. State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court of Rock County, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971), has been cited repeatedly for the proposition that evidence obtained as a result of a statutory violation may be suppressed, but only if the statute specifically authorizes suppression as a remedy. See, e.g., Raflik, 248 Wis. 2d 593, ¶ 15; Verkuylen, 120 Wis. 2d at 61; State v. King, 142 Wis. 2d 207, 214 n.3, 418 N.W.2d 11 (Ct. App. 1987).7 The majority opinion concludes that Raflik and Verkuylen were in error in citing Arnold for that proposition.8 However, as I will explain below, it is the majority opinion that is mistaken. The majority recasts the Arnold opinion to provide support for suppression of evidence, when Arnold has correctly been cited to preclude suppression. The courts in Raflik and in Verkuylen did not misconstrue Arnold, nor has any other court in more than 20 years.
¶ 167. Arnold arose under the Electronic Surveillance Control Law, Wis. Stat. § 968.27-.33, as an original action before this court. Arnold, 51 Wis. 2d at 435. The question presented was whether the Electronic Surveillance Control Law precluded the admission of four tape recordings as evidence in Arnold's trial. Id.
*679¶ 168. Essential to a full understanding oí Arnold is recognition that the trial court had denied Arnold's pretrial motion to suppress the tape recordings. Id. at 436. In denying his motion, the trial court explained, "it is not unlawful to intercept a wire or oral communication where a person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent." If the wiretap had been "unlawful," Arnold apparently would have prevailed on his motion to suppress because Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) provides that "[a]ny aggrieved person . . . may move before the trial court... to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted."9
¶ 169. However, as we relayed in Arnold, the Electronic Surveillance Control Law also provides that not all evidence that has been lawfully obtained by eavesdropping interceptions can be disclosed after it has been obtained. Arnold, 51 Wis. 2d at 442. As we explained, the Electronic Surveillance Control Law has two steps that must be met before the evidence obtained by wiretaps is eligible for admission in court: (1) it must be lawfully obtained; and (2) it must be obtained by a means that also qualifies it for disclosure. Id. at 442-43. With regard to the latter, Wis. Stat. § 968.29(3) sets out parameters that must be met when conducting a wiretap before such evidence can be disclosed. Id. at 442. When evidence is admitted at trial, obviously it is "disclosed"; and therefore, only wiretap evidence that has been obtained in compliance with the statutory parameters described in *680§ 968.29(3') may be admitted at trial. Id. As our opinion relates in State v. Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d 820, 549 N.W.2d 401 (1996), "suppression of wire communications under [the Electronic Surveillance Control Law] is reserved for those communications illegally intercepted. Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a)." Id. at 839 (emphasis added).
¶ 170. Even though the evidence at issue in Arnold was intercepted without court authorization, it was lawfully obtained because one of the parties to the conversation consented to the interception. Arnold, 51 Wis. 2d at 442 (citing Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b)). However, in considering all the relevant portions of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law, we concluded that "[i]nterception is one thing; disclosure as evidence in court is another." Id. We concluded that only evidence that is obtained after authorization by a court order can be disclosed; and therefore, it is only that evidence that may be admitted in court. Id. at 443.
¶ 171. Because the evidence at issue in Arnold had been lawfully obtained, it was not appropriate to analyze whether the evidence should have been suppressed, as the trial court concluded in ruling on Arnold's motion to suppress the intercepted communications. Instead, because the evidence in Arnold was lawfully obtained, thereby foreclosing Arnold from having the evidence suppressed, the relevant question was whether the evidence could be disclosed. We ruled that the evidence could not be disclosed. Id. at 444.
¶ 172. Therefore, the majority opinion is revising history when it says that "in Arnold, the government did not comply with the statutory requirements to obtain the evidence in question."10 As the trial court *681found when denying Arnold's suppression motion, law enforcement did comply with the statute in obtaining the evidence.
¶ 173. Consequently, Raflik correctly cited Arnold for the proposition that suppression is an available remedy for a statutory violation only if the statute so provides, as Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) does when the evidence was not lawfully obtained.
¶ 174. The majority opinion errs in its use of Arnold. Arnold does not support the majority opinion's assertion that "Arnold, correctly read, stands for the proposition that evidence obtained in violation of a statute (or not in accordance with the statute) may be suppressed under the statute to achieve the objectives of the statute, even though the statute does not expressly provide for the suppression or exclusion of the evidence."11 The majority opinion ignores the factual history of Arnold. As I explained above, Arnold's motion to suppress was denied because the evidence was not obtained in violation of the law; rather, the evidence was obtained in accordance with the statute that regulates the lawful means to obtain wiretap evidence. Therefore, there was no statutory violation in obtaining the evidence. The evidence simply did not meet a second statutory requirement, that relating to disclosure. Of course, disclosure would have occurred if the evidence had been admitted at trial. Arnold, 51 Wis. 2d at 444.
¶ 175. Therefore, in order for the decision in this case to be consistent with 20 years of prior precedent, including Arnold, Wis. Stat. § 968.135 must expressly authorize suppression of evidence obtained without a finding of probable cause. Raflik, 248 Wis. 2d 593, ¶ 15. *682Section 968.135 does not authorize suppression; accordingly, the majority errs by allowing suppression for this statutory violation. See id.
¶ 176. The majority opinion affirms the suppression of two types of evidence: the bank records and Popenhagen's incriminating statements. I begin with a discussion of the bank records.
2. Bank records
¶ 177. In deciding to exclude Popenhagen's bank records, the circuit court reasoned:
But it is clear to me that there is now a Federally- and Wisconsin-recognized right to privacy in one's personal banking records. And I'm convinced that, obtaining those records over which there is an umbrella of privacy by violating 968.135 of the statutes, should result in suppression.
We will not disturb an evidentiary ruling that suppresses evidence if the record shows that the circuit court, in making its ruling, exercised its discretion in accord with the correct legal standards and the facts of record. State v. Clark, 179 Wis. 2d 484, 490, 507 N.W.2d 172 (Ct. App. 1993). The concern here is whether the circuit court applied the correct legal standard.
¶ 178. Furthermore, courts do not necessarily suppress evidence that is obtained in violation of a statute that provides for suppression as a remedy. State v. House, 2007 WI 79, ¶ 38, 302 Wis. 2d 1, 734 N.W.2d 140 (concluding that even though Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) specifically authorizes suppression as a remedy for violating the Electronic Surveillance Control Law, whether a violation "requires suppression depends upon whether the statutory purpose has been achieved despite the violation"); Arthur Best, Wigmore on Evidence § 2183a *683(2007-2 Cumulative Supp. 2008) (concluding that not all illegally obtained evidence should be suppressed). Therefore, whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in suppressing Popenhagen's bank records initially turns on whether a Wisconsin appellate decision or some provision of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 specifically authorizes suppression; and if so, whether the circuit court gave a reasoned explanation for its decision. Clark, 179 Wis. 2d at 490.
¶ 179. The first part of the resolution of this question rests with the interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 968.135. Statutory interpretation commences with the language of the statute, as it is our obligation to determine what the legislature meant by the statute it enacted. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. We assume that the legislative meaning is expressed in the words chosen. Id., ¶ 44. The context in which the operative language appears is important too because a statute's meaning may be affected by the context in which the words chosen by the legislature are used. Id., ¶ 46. If our focus on the statute's language yields a plain, clear meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to its plain terms. Id. If the statutory language is unambiguous, it is unnecessary to consult extrinsic sources to facilitate interpretation. Id.
¶ 180. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.135 provides:
Subpoena for documents. Upon the request of the attorney general or a district attorney and upon a showing of probable cause under s. 968.12, a court shall issue a subpoena requiring the production of documents, as specified in s. 968.13(2). The documents shall be returnable to the court which issued the subpoena. Motions to the court, including, but not limited to, *684motions to quash or limit the subpoena, shall, be addressed to the court which issued the subpoena. Any person who unlawfully refuses to produce the documents may be compelled to do so as provided in ch. 785. This section does not limit or affect any other subpoena authority provided by law.
¶ 181. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.135 plainly provides for review of subpoenas to produce documents issued under its authority. It is silent in regard to verbal statements. Accordingly, the statute does not regulate the production of. verbal statements.
¶ 182. The statute specifies two particular types of motions: to "quash"12 and to "limit." It also includes the phrase, "including, but not limited to," which unambiguously directs that motions to quash or to limit do not constitute the universe of motions that are appropriately brought under Wis. Stat. § 968.135. However, that same phrase creates an ambiguity about what those unspecified motions may be.13
¶ 183. Both specified motions under Wis. Stat. § 968.135 appear to mean that the target of the subpoena's obligation to provide the documents requested may be reduced, prior to their production. For example, a motion to "quash," if granted, will remove *685the obligation of the target of the subpoena to provide the documents sought. A motion to "limit" may narrow the scope of the subpoena and thereby limit the target's obligation to produce some, but not all, of the documents.
¶ 184. Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 968.135 is silent in regard to what should occur if records outside the scope of the subpoena are produced, if privileged documents are produced or if the subpoena itself is defective, as the circuit court found here. State v. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d 870, 885-86, 496 N.W.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1993). Instead, the statute permits pre-compliance challenges to the subpoena. At least one authority has instructed that "if the target [here, the banks] misinterprets the demands of the subpoena and produces more than what is sought, the state is free to inspect the additional documents." 9 Christine M. Wiseman et al., Wisconsin Practice § 24.16 (1996).
¶ 185. The majority opinion observes the two statutory examples of motions that may be brought under Wis. Stat. § 968.135 and then presents a lengthy discourse on the doctrine of ejusdem generis.14 Thereafter, it concludes, in one sentence,' that the circuit court properly granted Popenhagen's motion to suppress the use of her bank records in the State's theft case against her.15
*686¶ 186. In my view, the majority opinion errs in its statutory construction for at least two reasons: (1) it overlooks the language chosen by the legislature in other laws that have authorized precluding the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial; and (2) it misper-ceives the nature of a Wis. Stat. § 968.135 subpoena, which does not authorize either a search or a seizure.
¶ 187. To illustrate the first point, I contrast Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a), the statute at issue in Arnold, with Wis. Stat. § 968.135, the statute at issue here. In § 968.30(9)(a), the legislature specifically authorized suppression as an available remedy when wiretap evidence was obtained in violation of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law, as we recognized in Gilmore. Gilmore, 201 Wis. 2d at 839. Section 968.3Q(9)(a) shows that the legislature knew how to authorize suppression when it chose to do so. As is apparent, § 968.30(9)(a) specified that an "aggrieved person" may move "to suppress" evidence obtained by unlawful means and also to suppress "evidence derived" from unlawfully obtained evidence. In addition, the temporal focus of § 968.30(9)(a) is on a time period after the State has already obtained the evidence. By contrast, the temporal focus of the motions listed in § 968.135 is on a time period before the target of the subpoena has complied by producing documents. Stated otherwise, the focus of a § 968.135 motion is on limiting what the target of the subpoena is obligated to provide, not on the use of the documents after the target of the subpoena has provided them. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d at 886 (concluding that "[b]e-cause the additional bank records were not obtained by *687state action violating Swift's constitutional rights, Swift is not entitled to suppression of the additional bank records").
¶ 188. Second, Wis. Stat. § 968.135 does not authorize either a search or a seizure. A § 968.135 subpoena is not the equivalent of a search warrant. A § 968.135 subpoena does not give law enforcement the authority to go into a place and seize things. Rather, a § 968.135 subpoena is a demand for the production of documents that gives the target of the subpoena time to contemplate and to object in court to providing the things sought. Id. at 885-86. No person "seized" Popenhagen's bank records. They were produced by the banks, who could have objected to that production. In contrast, an electronic interception, for which the legislature in Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) has authorized suppression when the interception is unlawful, constitutes a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 352-53 (1967).
¶ 189. Moreover, Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) is not the only statute in which the legislature meant to place limits on the admission of evidence obtained in violation of a statute. Wisconsin Stat. § 938.31(3)(b) also provides that a juvenile's statement taken "during a custodial interrogation is not admissible in evidence against the juvenile in any court proceeding alleging the juvenile to be delinquent," unless the juvenile's statement is taken in conformance with the statute's provisions. The underlying concern for the interrogation of.a juvenile in custody has constitutional roots. The concern is that a juvenile in custody may be compelled to testify against himself; and therefore, certain safeguards are required in. order to preserve his right against compelled self-incrimination. State v. Jerrell *688C.J., 2005 WI 105, ¶ 30, 283 Wis. 2d 145, 699 N.W.2d 110. Therefore, in both instances where the legislature specifically has authorized the suppression of evidence because a statutory directive was not followed, the policy underlying the statute is the protection of a constitutional right.
¶ 190. Accordingly, I conclude that when the legislature intended to authorize suppression as a remedy for non-compliance with a statute, it specifically stated that "suppression" was the remedy for that statutory violation. See State v. Christensen, 2007 WI App 170, ¶ 17, 304 Wis. 2d 147, 737 N.W.2d 38 (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) as providing suppression for communications improperly intercepted). In addition, in the statutes where the legislature authorized such a remedy, constitutional rights underlie the statutes. Therefore, I conclude that the legislature did not authorize the courts to suppress evidence that is obtained in violation of Wis. Stat. § 968.135.
¶ 191. In sum, because more than 20 years of precedent of the appellate courts of this state have required that the statute specifically authorize suppression as a remedy for a statutory violation before suppression may be employed, and because the legislature has not done so here, I conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it suppressed Popenhagen's bank records based on the circuit court's failure to find probable cause to issue the subpoena. As I have explained above, the majority opinion's analysis of the issue is not well reasoned; it ignores the procedures that occurred before the trial court in Arnold and does not identify any compelling interest that is served by overturning more than 20 years of well established precedent.
*6893. Incriminating statements
¶ 192. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.135 is directed to documents. Verbal statements are not mentioned in the statute. Accordingly, the target of the subpoena has no obligation to produce verbal statements. Therefore, a motion to "quash" and a motion to "limit" brought under the provisions of § 968.135 could not affect a verbal statement. Those motions affect only the scope of the production of documents. However, the majority opinion upholds the circuit court's suppression of Popenhagen's incriminating statements, as well as the suppression of her bank records.16
¶ 193. Because Popenhagen's incriminating statements were acquired indirectly as a result of the subpoena for her bank records, Popenhagen's statements constitute "derivative evidence." State v. Gums, 69 Wis. 2d 513, 515, 230 N.W.2d 813 (1975). There is no statutory basis for excluding her statements because Wis. Stat. § 968.135, by its unambiguous terms, applies only to "documents." See Raflik, 248 Wis. 2d 593, ¶ 15; see also Swift, 173 Wis. 2d at 886.
¶ 194. Popenhagen does not argue that this derivative evidence should be suppressed because Wis. Stat. § 968.135 was violated. Rather, she argues that suppression is warranted because bank records are protected under the state and federal constitutions. Therefore, in order to have the authority to suppress Popenhagen's statements, we would be required to engraft the constitutional doctrine, "fruit of the poisonous tree," onto a statutory violation.
¶ 195. The majority opinion does not address Popenhagen's constitutional argument. Instead, it cre*690ates an argument that no party made, and then it decides the issue it created by concluding that Wis. Stat. § 968.135 provides for the suppression of derivative evidence.17 The majority opinion cites no precedent for its conclusion. Indeed, there is no precedent for such a decision. To the contrary, there is 20 years of precedent against it, which the majority opinion discards without any reasoned discussion of why such a drastic step is necessary.
¶ 196. To amplify the misguided nature of the majority's analysis, it is necessary to provide a brief sketch of the standard application of the exclusionary rule.
¶ 197. The exclusionary rule may operate to suppress derivative evidence, such as Popenhagen's statements, when a constitutional violation has occurred "under certain circumstances, via the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, if such evidence is obtained 'by exploitation of... illegality.'" State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶ 24, 285 Wis. 2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899 (hereinafter referred to as Knapp II)18 (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-88 (1963)). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is designed to " 'deter future unlawful police conduct.'" Id., ¶ 22 (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347 (1974)). It is not employed when there has been no unreasonable and bad-faith police conduct. Powell, 428 U.S. at 482; Knapp II, 285 Wis. 2d 86, ¶¶ 74-75.
*691¶ 198. In Knapp II, we excluded certain evidence based on police misconduct. Knapp II, 285 Wis. 2d 86, ¶ 75. Our decision was driven by law enforcement's intentional violation of Knapp's Miranda rights. Id. However, Knapp II stands in stark contrast with this case. First, Knapp II is based on a Miranda violation, which is a judicially-created doctrine grounded in protecting a criminal defendant's constitutional right to remain silent. Here, as I explain below, no constitutionally related issue is presented, and the majority opinion has referred to no violation of Popenhagen's constitutional rights. Second, while Knapp II provides an example of circumstances in which application of the exclusionary rule furthers the policy of deterring deliberate, illegal police conduct, the case before us manifests the absence of any "need for deterrence." Id., ¶ 74 (quoting State v. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, ¶ 76 n.15, 265 Wis. 2d 278, 666 N.W.2d 881 (hereinafter referred to as "Knapp I")). Instead, the parties agree that the police officers acted in accordance with the law and in good faith. The error here was the circuit court's inadvertently failing to ask for the affidávit before signing the warrants.
¶ 199. Even when a constitutional right has been affected, suppression of derivative evidence is not automatically accorded. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 916 (1984). The remedy of suppression of evidence "is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." Id.
¶ 200. No police misconduct is even alleged to have occurred here. Instead, all agree that an officer involved in the investigation of the theft from Save-More had prepared a probable cause affidavit, but apparently, it did not reach the circuit court. Judge Mangerson expressed surprise and dismay that his *692signature was affixed to a subpoena that did not comport with Wisconsin statute. Courts have been loathe to exclude evidence obtained as a result of an error committed by a dispassionate jurist. See, e.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 14-16 (1995); Leon, 468 U.S. at 916; United States v. Hickman, 870 F. Supp. 709 (W.D. Va. 1994). Yet, the majority opinion does so here, and as a result, effective prosecution of Popenhagen for stealing more than $29,000 from her employer will be hampered significantly.
¶ 201. Accordingly, it is an enormous expansion of the rights of a defendant in a criminal case to engraft the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine onto a statutory violation where no constitutional right was also at issue and no police misconduct caused the violation. However, that is exactly what the majority opinion does.19 The majority opinion is careful not to use the terminology associated with suppression of derivative evidence that arises from a constitutional violation, "the fruit of the poisonous tree," because it does not address a constitutional violation. However, the majority opinion achieves an end result that heretofore could be accomplished only when a constitutional violation had occurred or a statute specifically authorized suppression of derivative evidence, as Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) does. By not naming the doctrine that it is actually applying, the majority opinion reminds me of a prior statement of Chief Justice Abrahamson: "Like any illusionist's magical sleight of hand, the majority opinion is mystifying and puzzling, but ultimately not what it appears." State v. Sykes, 2005 WI 48, ¶ 48, 279 Wis. 2d 742, 695 N.W.2d 277 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting).
*693¶ 202. Moreover, the inadvertent nature of the error committed here disposes of another of Popenhagen's arguments. She contends the lack of a finding of probable cause constitutes an abuse of process that demands suppression of her statements. Popen-hagen is incorrect. Judge Mangerson's and Judge Kinney's unintentional errors lead to the conclusion that there is "nothing in the record to suggest that the judges [s] did not abide by [their respective] responsibilities in acting as ... neutral and detached magistrate[s]." Noble, 253 Wis. 2d 206, ¶ 26. Accordingly, there was no abuse of process that would support exclusion of her incriminating statements. Id., ¶¶ 26-27.
¶ 203. Therefore, I conclude that Popenhagen's incriminating statements made to Oneida police officers after she was confronted with her bank records cannot be suppressed under the authority granted in Wis. Stat. § 968.135 because: (1) § 968.135, by its clear, unambiguous terms, applies only to documents; it has no application to verbal statements; (2) the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine may be applied only to constitutional violations; and (3) no abuse of process occurred.
C. United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment
¶ 204. One of the legal premises upon which the circuit court based its decision to suppress was its conclusion that Popenhagen had a constitutionally protected right of privacy in her bank records. The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches of their "persons, houses, papers, and effects ... ."20 U.S. Const, amend. IV The United States *694Supreme Court held in Miller that the Fourth Amendment does not afford a right of privacy in a person's bank records.
¶ 205. Miller emphasized that bank records are not the type of "papers" to which the Fourth Amendment refers. Miller, 425 U.S. at 440. According to Miller, bank records are not "private papers" to which an account holder can assert "ownership" or "possession"; instead, they are business records belonging to the bank. Id. Moreover, bank records do not remain in the sole custody of the account holder, but rather reside in the custody of the financial institution. Id. at 442. Indeed, the records have been deliberately exposed to the public and "what a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Id. (quoting Katz, 389 U.S. at 351). Furthermore, bank records
are not confidential communications but [may be] negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions. [Records such as] financial statements and deposit slips[] contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. ... The depositor takes the risk, in revealing [her] affairs to another, that the information will be conveyed by that person to the Government.
Id. at 442-43.
¶ 206. Popenhagen argues that Miller is not controlling because the enactment of the Right to Financial *695Privacy Act (Financial Privacy Act), 12 U.S.C. § 3401, et seq., effectively overruled it and, therefore, the Financial Privacy Act entitles citizens to a privacy interest in their bank records. Accordingly, Popenhagen argues that operation of the Financial Privacy Act mandates that her bank records and her inculpatory statements be excluded from evidence. Popenhagen is mistaken.
¶ 207. The Financial Privacy Act was indeed passed in response to Miller, but it does not render Miller any less robust in the present context. While the Financial Privacy Act prescribes the means by which bank records may be obtained by a "Government authority," it defines Government authority as an "agency or department of the United States, or any officer, employee, or agent thereof." 12 U.S.C. § 3401(3). Therefore, the Financial Privacy Act does not apply to subpoenas issued by a state court. See id.; see also, In re Grand Jury Applications, 536 N.Y.S.2d 939, 942-43 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988); Nichols v. Council on Judicial Complaints, 615 P.2d 280, 282-83 (Okla. 1980).
¶ 208. Moreover, the remedy of suppression is unavailable under the Financial Privacy Act. See 12 U.S.C. § 3417; see also, United States v. Daccarett, 6 F.3d 37, 52 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Kington, 801 F.2d 733, 737-38 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); United States v. Frazin, 780 F.2d 1461, 1466 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 844 (1986). Congress provided for injunctive relief and civil penalties for noncompliance, and those remedies are exclusive. 12 U.S.C. § 3417. In short, the Financial Privacy Act does not undercut the holding of Miller. Miller rests on the Fourth Amendment and, as controlling Fourth Amendment precedent, it forecloses suppression of evidence in this case based on the United States Constitution.
*696D. Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 11
¶ 209. Popenhagen encourages this court to recognize a right of privacy in bank records under the Wisconsin Constitution. We interpret the Wisconsin Constitution in a manner that "give[s] effect to the intent of the framers and of the people who adopted it." Schilling, 278 Wis. 2d 216, ¶ 13 (quoting State v. Cole, 2003 WI 112, ¶ 10, 264 Wis. 2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328). To do so, we examine "the plain meaning of the words in the context used; the constitutional debates and the practices in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution; and the earliest interpretation of the provision by the legislature as manifested in the first law passed following adoption." Id., ¶ 16 (quoting Wis. Citizens Concerned for Cranes & Doves v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, ¶ 44, 270 Wis. 2d 318, 677 N.W.2d 612).
¶ 210. The Wisconsin Constitution's search and seizure provision almost identically mirrors its federal Fourth Amendment counterpart.21 Historically, Wisconsin courts have "give[n] effect to the intent of the framers" of Article I, Section 11 by interpreting it to provide the same protections as the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment as providing. Id., ¶ 13 (quoting Cole, 264 Wis. 2d 520, ¶ 10); see, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶ 15, 274 Wis. 2d 540, 683 N.W.2d 1 (concluding that the interpretation of Article I, Section 11 is consistent with the *697United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence construing the Fourth Amendment); State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 586-87, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992) (explaining that "we have consistently and routinely conformed the law of search and seizure under the Wisconsin Constitution to the law developed by the United States Supreme Court under the Fourth Amendment"); State v. Guy, 172 Wis. 2d 86, 93, 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992) (conforming "Wisconsin's law of search and seizure to the law of search and seizure developed by the Supreme Court — in part because the text... is identical in all important respects").
¶ 211. However, under our authority to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution independently from the United States Constitution, we have not always marched in lockstep with federal jurisprudence. For instance, we recently parted company with a plurality of the United States Supreme Court22 to hold under Wisconsin's Fifth Amendment analogue contained in Article I, Section 8, that evidence obtained as a result of an intentional Miranda23 violation must be suppressed. Knapp II, 285 Wis. 2d 86, ¶ 2. However, Knapp does not stand for the proposition that we construe Article I, Section 11 more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the Fourth Amendment. As explained below, we have done so in only one case. State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625.
¶ 212. Popenhagen urges this court to exercise its authority to independently interpret the Wisconsin Constitution and to construe Article I, Section 11 in a fashion that would depart from Miller to hold that the *698Wisconsin Constitution affords a right of privacy in one's bank records. As support for her argument, Popenhagen points out that several states (California, Florida, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Utah) have rejected the holding of Miller and have adopted a right of privacy in hank records under their respective state constitutions. A review of these decisions, however, reveals that the cases upon which they were based differ from this case in many respects.24
*699¶ 213. Utah, Colorado and Pennsylvania remain the only states post -Miller to recognize a privacy right in bank records under state constitutional provisions nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment. State v. Thompson, 810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991); Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 612 P.2d 1117 (Colo. 1980); Commonwealth v. DeJohn, 403 A.2d 1283 (Pa. 1979). Courts in these three states have adopted similar reasoning for departing from Miller: Customers of financial institutions expect that documents that they voluntarily transmit to those institutions will remain private; moreover, these courts reason, disclosures of one's financial affairs to these institutions are virtually unavoidable because the demands of modern society require people to maintain a bank account. See, e.g., DeJohn, 403 A.2d at 1289 (citing Burrows, 529 P.2d at 593.)
¶ 214. While we retain the authority to interpret our state constitution independently from the United States Constitution, I would decline to do so here. I observe distinctions between our Article I, Section 8 jurisprudence and our Article I, Section 11 jurisprudence, and I am unpersuaded by Thompson, DiGiacomo, and DeJohn.
¶ 215. First, our jurisprudence demonstrates that this court has construed Article I, Section 11 consistently with the Fourth Amendment. In the nearly 160 years that Article I, Section 11 has graced our state constitution, I located only one instance in which this court has interpreted that provision differently from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. That case presented the question of *700whether, and to what extent, Wisconsin should recognize a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule under the state constitution. Eason, 245 Wis. 2d 206. Otherwise, this court has manifested an unwavering commitment to interpreting Article I, Section 11 uniformly with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Most pertinently with regard to the case at bar, we recently explained that "Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution affords individuals no greater privacy expectations than those provided under the Fourth Amendment." State v. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, ¶ 81, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568.
¶ 216. Second, I would decline to adopt the reasoning of Thompson, DiGiacomo, and DeJohn, or the substantive interpretations these courts applied to their respective state constitutions. Those courts declined to follow Miller primarily because they found the reasoning of Justice Brennan's Miller dissent more persuasive than the reasoning offered by the Miller majority. See, e.g., DeJohn, 403 A.2d at 1290; Miller, 425 U.S. at 447-53 (Brennan, J., dissenting). In Swift, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals implicitly rejected Justice Brennan's analysis, first by observing that we had recently reaffirmed our continuing commitment to interpreting Article I, Section 11 in conformity with the Fourth Amendment, and then by concluding that the defendant had no privacy interest in his bank records under the state constitution. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d at 882-83. Accordingly, I conclude that bank customers have no expectation of privacy in their bank records because those records do not reside in the sole custody of the bank customer, but rather lie in the custody of the financial institution where they are expected to be viewed by others. Miller, 425 U.S. at 442-43.
*701¶ 217. In addition, when the language of the Wisconsin Constitution closely matches that of the United States Constitution, without clear expression from the framers of our state constitution indicating an intent to provide greater protections than those provided under the United States Constitution, we normally interpret the state constitution in accord with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Constitution. See, e.g., State v. Agnello, 226 Wis. 2d 164, 180-81, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999) (concluding that where "the language of the provision in the state constitution is 'virtually identical' to that of the federal provision or where no difference in intent is discernible, Wisconsin courts have normally construed the state constitution consistent with the United States Supreme Court's construction of the federal [Constitution."). Accordingly, because the language of Article I, Section 11 almost identically mirrors the language of the Fourth Amendment, and the framers of the Wisconsin Constitution declared no intention that Article I, Section 11 should be interpreted more broadly than the Fourth Amendment, I would continue our practice of interpreting Article I, Section 11 in accord with the Fourth Amendment.
¶ 218. The interests of consistency, uniformity, and predictability are well-served by continuing to interpret Article I, Section 11 in conformity with the Fourth Amendment. Such an approach "reduces to a minimum the confusion and uncertainty under which the police must operate." State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 175, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 989 (1986). Moreover, continuing to conform Wisconsin search and seizure law to federal search and seizure law "is not only consistent with the text of Wisconsin's search and seizure provision, its constitutional history *702and its judicial history, but it is also in accord with sound public policy." Id. at 175-76. Accordingly, I conclude that Popenhagen does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her bank records under the Wisconsin Constitution.25 Therefore, the Wisconsin Constitution provides no basis for suppression.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 219. I conclude that controlling precedent, as established more than 20 years ago by the appellate courts of this state, precludes suppressing Popenhagen's bank records and her subsequent incriminating statements. I reach this conclusion because: (1) Wis. Stat. § 968.135 does not authorize the suppression of Popenhagen's bank records as a remedy for the circuit court's failure to find probable cause that the bank records were linked to the commission of a crime; and (2) Popenhagen has no privacy right in her bank records under either the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
¶ 220. Accordingly, I would affirm the court of appeals decision that overturned the circuit court's *703suppression of evidence, and I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion that upholds suppression of Popenhagen's bank records and her subsequent incriminating statements.

 Circuit court Judges Robert Kinney and Mark Mangerson of Oneida County signed the subpoenas directed to three banks where Popenhagen held accounts.

 There is no transcript in the record of precisely what Popenhagen said; her statements are recounted in summary fashion in the September 19, 2004 police report prepared by Officer Todd G. Hanson and provided in the record. Officer Hanson states in that report that, upon being confronted with her bank records, Popenhagen explained that "she didn't know why she did this" and that "she always thought she might get caught." According to Officer Hanson's report, Popenhagen further stated that "she used some of the money to pay the mortgage and to pay on some judgments against her."

 Majority op., ¶¶ 4-5.

Id., ¶ 71.

 Majority op., ¶¶ 58-71. In addition, Popenhagen did not request the sweeping change in the law that the majority opinion effects. Nevertheless, the majority opinion uses this case as a vehicle to effect an enormous expansion of the rights of defendants in criminal cases at the expense of victims of crimes, where the failure to follow a statute was simply an error of law by a circuit court judge and no police misconduct is alleged to have occurred.

 State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court of Rock County, 51 Wis. 2d 434, 187 N.W.2d 354 (1971) has ¿iso been cited by unpublished opinions for the same proposition. See, e.g., State v. Harris, No. 83-143-CR, unpublished slip op., 1983 WL 161359 at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 1983).

 Majority op., ¶¶ 58, 63, 67.

 The same substantive provision was in existence in 1971 when Arnold was decided, although the form of the statute differed slightly. Wis. Stat. § 968.30(9)(a) (1971-72).

 Majority op., ¶ 61.

 Id., ¶ 62.

 Ordinarily, motions to quash must be made before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. E 45; see also, 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2458 (3d ed. 2008).

 Because the statute is ambiguous, I may turn to "interpretive resources outside the statutory text" for guidance. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI58, ¶ 50, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. It is customary to consult legislative history first. However, the legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 is sparse and of no avail in interpreting the statute.

 Majority op., ¶¶ 46-55.

 Id., ¶ 56. The majority opinion does not bother to balance the rights of the victim from whom $29,000 was stolen with the right it claims Popenhagen has under Wis. Stat. § 968.135. It does not bother to note that the parties agree there was probable cause for the issuance of the subpoena and that law enforcement had made an affidavit in that regard before the subpoena was issued, but that through inadvertence, it was not presented to the judge. Instead, it automati*686cally suppresses the evidence of Popenhagen's crime. Even when a constitutional right has been violated, suppression does not automatically follow. See Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 446 (1974).

 Majority op., ¶ 91.

 Id.

 State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, 285 Wis. 2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899 (hereinafter referred to as Knapp IT), is a second decision by this court, made after remand from the United States Supreme Court after it issued United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004).

 Majority op., ¶ 81-91.

 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides in full:
*694The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 Patane, 542 U.S. 630.

 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

 The California Supreme Court in Burrows v. Superior Court, 529 P.2d 590 (Cal. 1974), accorded persons a privacy interest in their bank records. However, Burrows was decided two years prior to the United States Supreme Court's deciding United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976), and it was driven in part by the Fifth Circuit's soon-to-be-overturned holding in Miller that people have a right of privacy in regard to their bank records. Further distinguishing Burrows from the circumstances here is the California Constitution, which also contains an express right of privacy that is not present in the Wisconsin Constitution. See Cal. Const, art. 1, § 1.
The Florida Supreme Court's decision in Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1985), is similarly distinguishable because it was based primarily on Florida's state constitutional privacy provision. Illinois has also seen fit to grant persons a right to privacy in their bank records under the state constitution, but under a search and seizure provision drafted more expansively than the Fourth Amendment. People v. Jackson, 452 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983). The Washington Constitution's search and seizure provision is also drafted more broadly than the Fourth Amendment, providing for broader protection of interests not provided under the United States Constitution, including a right to privacy in bank records. State v. Miles, 156 P.3d 864 (Wash. 2007).
Although the New Jersey. Supreme Court expressly held for the first time in 2005 that its state constitution provides an expectation of privacy in bank records, in so holding, it *699observed that New Jersey courts, like the California Supreme Court in Burrows, recognized a privacy interest in bank records that pre-dated Miller. State v. McAllister, 875 A.2d 866 (N.J. 2005).

 My conclusion is in accord with eight of the other states that have ruled on the issue. State v. Schultz, 850 P.2d 818 (Kan. 1993); Norkin v. Hoey, 586 N.Y.S.2d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992); State v. Klattenhoff, 801 P.2d 548 (Haw. 1990); State v. Union State Bank, 267 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 1978); State v. Fredette, 411 A.2d 65 (Me. 1979); State v. Melvin, 357 S.E.2d 379 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987); Cox v. State, 392 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979).
Moreover, though not determinative, it is instructive that the Wisconsin Legislature has been aware of Miller's holding for 31 years and State v. Swift, 173 Wis. 2d 870, 496 N.W.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1993) for more than 14 years; yet, it has taken no action to amend the Wisconsin Constitution.