State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2018 WI 87

Background

Christopher Kerr received a municipal citation for disorderly conduct; he did not appear and a default judgment was entered. Sixty days later the Ashland County court issued a commitment order/arrest warrant for nonpayment.
On Sept. 27, 2015, Bayfield dispatch told officers who responded to a 9‑1‑1 follow‑up that Kerr had an outstanding Ashland County arrest warrant. Officers arrested Kerr and, in a search incident to arrest, found methamphetamine.
Kerr was charged with possession of methamphetamine and moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the civil warrant was invalid because statutory procedures (notice/hearing regarding ability to pay) were not followed, so the arrest and search were unlawful.
The Bayfield reviewing circuit court granted suppression, reasoning that systemic judicial failure in issuing such warrants rendered the warrant void ab initio and that "judicial integrity" justified exclusion even without police misconduct.
The State sought interlocutory review; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted bypass and reversed the suppression order, holding the exclusionary rule's sole purpose is deterrence of police misconduct and that judicial error alone is not a standalone basis for suppression when officers acted without misconduct.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kerr)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether evidence seized after arrest on a judicially‑issued municipal warrant must be suppressed when the issuing court violated statutory procedures (warrant allegedly invalid ab initio).	Warrant was invalid because statutory procedures (notice/ability‑to‑pay hearing) were not followed; the unlawful warrant led directly to arrest and the discovery of evidence, so suppression is required to vindicate rights and preserve judicial integrity.	Suppression is improper where police did not engage in misconduct; exclusionary rule aims to deter police, not judicial error; relief should be via habeas or §1983 rather than exclusion.	Reversed suppression. Court held judicial error or compromised "judicial integrity" is not an independent ground for exclusion; exclusionary rule serves solely to deter police misconduct and does not apply here.
Whether officers' reliance on dispatch/ failure to inspect the warrant constitutes police misconduct warranting exclusion.	Kerr contends officers should not be able to rely blindly on dispatch when a warrant is deficient; failure to check the warrant contributed to the constitutional violation.	Officers reasonably relied on dispatch and computer records; absent evidence of intentional or systemic police misconduct their conduct does not trigger the exclusionary rule; at most negligent.	Court held reliance on dispatch was objectively reasonable; negligence or isolated error by officers does not warrant suppression (good‑faith/Leon principles and Herring discussed).

Key Cases Cited

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (exclusionary rule's primary purpose is deterrence of police misconduct)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (isolated negligence or clerical errors do not warrant suppression)
State v. Scull, 361 Wis. 2d 288 (Wis. 2015) (discussing limits of "judicial integrity" rationale)
State v. Hess, 327 Wis. 2d 524 (Wis. 2010) (opinion addressing judicial‑integrity rationale; no majority adopting it)
State v. Kriegbaum, 194 Wis. 229 (warrant issued by officer lacking statutory authority may be void ab initio)
State v. Loney, 110 Wis. 2d 256 (Ct. App.) (warrants issued by officials without authority require suppression)
State v. Grawien, 123 Wis. 2d 428 (Ct. App.) (similar rule on lack of issuing authority)
State v. Eason, 245 Wis. 2d 206 (Wis. 2001) (Wisconsin adopts a good‑faith exception under state constitution)