882 N.W.2d 422
Wis.2016Background
- Victim found stabbed to death in hotel room; a knife sheath was recovered but no knife. Officers investigated and identified Mastella Jackson as a suspect.
- Police located Jackson at home with her son, brought her to the Grand Chute PD, and interrogated her for many hours before giving Miranda warnings; the circuit court found the interrogation included intentional Miranda violations and suppressed Jackson’s statements.
- While a search warrant for Jackson’s residence was prepared and signed (based largely on untainted hotel and witness information, plus some tainted statements), officers began a methodical search of the home and garage before Jackson was returned.
- When detectives brought Jackson back to the residence during the search, she pointed out a garbage can in the garage containing the knife and bloody clothing. The circuit court suppressed those physical items as fruit of the poisonous tree.
- The court of appeals reversed suppression of the physical evidence, finding (after excising tainted statements from the affidavit) that probable cause existed and the officers inevitably would have discovered the knife and clothing during a lawful, methodical search.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: it applied the federal Nix inevitable-discovery doctrine, rejected a requirement that the State prove absence of officer bad faith, and held the State proved by a preponderance that discovery of the physical evidence was inevitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inevitable discovery exception can admit physical evidence found after statements obtained in violation of Miranda | Inevitable-discovery should not apply where officers intentionally violated Miranda to obtain the lead that produced the physical evidence | Nix permits inevitable discovery without a bad-faith requirement; here untainted evidence and a lawful, ongoing search made discovery inevitable | Court applied Nix and held inevitable-discovery may apply absent proof of good faith and admitted the knife and clothing |
| Whether the State must prove absence of bad faith by officers to invoke inevitable discovery | Argues Wisconsin Constitution (Art I, § 8) and Knapp require suppression when violations were intentional | Relies on Nix: bad-faith proof is not required; deterrence concerns are addressed by suppression of statements and other sanctions | Court rejected a per se bad-faith requirement and declined to extend Knapp to bar inevitable discovery here |
| Whether the warrant remained valid after excising tainted statements (probable cause) | Contended the warrant lacked probable cause once Jackson’s statements were removed, so discovery flowed from tainted information | Court of appeals and State argued untainted hotel and witness information (including son's statements) supplied probable cause | Court concluded the affidavit sans tainted material still showed probable cause to search the residence |
| Proper analytical framework for inevitable discovery (Schwegler/Cherry three-prong vs. Nix’s preponderance test) | Implicit: favor stricter limits (active pursuit/bad-faith sensitivity) to protect constitutional rights | Argues Nix’s preponderance standard should govern; Schwegler factors are useful indicia but not rigid prerequisites | Court treated Schwegler/Cherry factors as important indicia, not indispensable elements; applied Nix preponderance standard and historical-fact inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (Sup. Ct.) (adopts inevitable-discovery exception; preponderance standard; rejects requirement to show absence of bad faith)
- State v. Weber, 163 Wis. 2d 116 (Wis.) (Wisconsin application of Nix; evidence admissible if would have inevitably been discovered)
- State v. Knapp, 285 Wis. 2d 86 (Wis.) (holds physical evidence obtained as direct result of an intentional Miranda violation must be suppressed under Wisconsin Constitution)
- State v. Schwegler, 170 Wis. 2d 487 (Ct. App.) (adopted a three-prong test for inevitable discovery derived from Cherry)
- State v. Avery, 337 Wis. 2d 351 (Ct. App.) (applied Schwegler/Cherry framework; treated the prongs as indicia of inevitability)
- State v. Lopez, 207 Wis. 2d 413 (Ct. App.) (discussed inevitable-discovery doctrine in Wisconsin context)