State v. Spaeth
819 N.W.2d 769
Wis.2012Background
- Spaeth was on probation for sexual offenses; polygraph examination was part of supervision and could affect probation status.
- Agent DeWitt supervised Spaeth and relayed polygraph results; Spaeth admitted violations and possible criminal conduct to her.
- DOC statutes and admin code authorize lie detector testing for sex offenders and limit use of compelled statements to correctional purposes; polygraph participation was compulsory.
- Spaeth was taken to Oshkosh police after DeWitt’s disclosures; police conducted Miranda-warned interview and obtained a written statement.
- Court held Spaeth’s Oshkosh statements were derivative of compelled testimony to the probation agent under Kastigar/Portash/Evans, and must be suppressed in criminal prosecutions (not in revocation hearings).
- Dissent notes Spaeth’s earlier statements were voluntary and questions the majority’s compulsion analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Oshkosh statement is derived from compelled probation testimony | Spaeth: compelled testimony to agent derived the police statement | State: independent source? not wholly independent | Derived from compelled testimony; not wholly independent |
| Whether probation-compelled questioning triggers Fifth Amendment immunity under Evans/Murphy/Kastigar | Spaeth: compulsion applies; Evans immunity governs | State: limited Evans scope; some questions not compelled | Compelled testimony subject to Kastigar/Evans; immunity applies |
| Does attenuation apply to fruits of compelled statements | Spaeth: attenuation doctrine not applicable | State: may apply in some contexts | Attenuation doctrine not applicable to compelled, incriminating statements under Kastigar/Portash |
| Does Miranda warning render compelled statements voluntary for later use | Spaeth: Miranda does not cure derivative use issue | State: Miranda valid; does not erase compulsion | Miranda warning does not cure derivative use immunity; compelled source remains tied to probation testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (immunity coextensive with privilege; use and derivative use barred)
- State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225 (1977) (immunity principles in probation context; Evans framework)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (compulsion under probation interviewing; penalties and custody considerations)
- United States v. Portash, 440 U.S. 450 (1979) (implications for use of immunized testimony)
- State v. Mark, 308 Wis. 2d 191 (2008) (analysis of compelled statements in probation context; Evans framework)