Wentela v. State

thority. county We hold that the court decide the should validity county department’s common-law claim against guardianship estate. stated,

For the reasons we reverse both the decision appeals county the court of and the order of the court proceedings remand the cause for further not incon- opinion. sistent with this

By the appeals Court. —Decision of the court of reversed; county order of the court is reversed and cause is remanded. error, Wentela,

James Plaintiff Wisconsin, State Defendant error.

Supreme Court Argued April 1, No. 77-376-CR. December 1979. Decided 1980. (Also reported 313.) in 290 N.W.2d plaintiff error there were briefs For and oral argument Eisenberg, public Howard B. state de- fender. argued by the defendant in error the cause

For general, Becker, attorney David J. assistant with whom attorney gen- Follette, brief was Bronson C. La on the eral. CALLOW, in error

WILLIAM J. Plaintiff James G. convicted, following (defendant) jury Wentela trial, 940.02, second-degree contrary murder to sec. alleged 1975. Stats. On he contends that con- review polygraph made him im- fession to a examiner was permissibly and, consequently, obtained was erroneous- ly agree and admitted into evidence. We reverse the I judgment of conviction. early 1976, morning 7,

In the of June defendant and companions drinking driving five and were around in began dropping defendant’s bus. About a.m. defendant companions following Lehto, the his off in order: Sue Gary Wade, Irons, Debbie and Kevin Laakso. When bus, (Louis), left the Laakso Charmaine Louis vic- the tim, still on was the bus with the defendant. by

When Louis did return morning, home her contacted mother the sheriff’s office. Detective Gene Starkey 1976, talked to 11, the defendant on and June he, victim, the defendant confirmed that and others drinking driving had been beer around his bus. dropped The defendant said he off one-half mile Louis bridge west of Iron River near the because he could squad sitting the Iron car see River between two build- ings Starkey in town. he Detective testified doubted squad position the defendant could car from the see déseribed; talking checking the area and looking a he was mother, he concluded Louis’s with runaway. a body and not a shallow 1976, found August 23, Brule resident a

On gravel pit. A in a scattered grave and human bones grave identified from the jawbone 16 feet found X-rays. charts and dental use of as that of Louis concerning circumstances record is silent While stipulated parties arrest, defendant’s ar- 23, August defendant p.m., on at 6:30 the Bureau pursuant from at home rested and Parole. of Probation County Douglas p.m., August at about 6

On brought Lindberg (Lindberg) Richard Undersheriff Douglas coun in the room to an defendant Lindberg time that at jail. testified ty At trial rights, under Miranda of his defendant informed the then Arizona, and the defendant 436 (1966), 384 U.S. rights along with an acknowl signed a waiver of these they Below the edgment him. were understood sig rights immediately above his but list following paragraph: appears nature rights my and I under- “I have read this statement willing my rights make a state- I am what are. stand lawyer. I questions. I not want ment and answer do doing. promises or I am No understand threats have know what pressure or coer- been made to me and no against any me.” kind has been used cion of possi- Lindberg also discussed with the examination, bility polygraph that the defendant take agreed polygraph ex- to talk to the and the defendant Lindberg, Following the discussion with aminer. this Terry Lundgren (Lund- was interviewed gren), polygraph examiner. the p.m.

Lundgren began shortly after 6 the interview continued, except August 24, 1976, it for a ten- on shortly midnight. twenty-minute break, until tó interroga- Lundgren defendant were alone the and the one-way glass in which there was a tion room at Lundgren had told the defendant about the stated he Lundgren beginning ex- started of the interview. sign plaining which the defendant was to the forms prior They polygraph examination. included a to the personal form, polygraph an data authorization for the agreement concerning examination, stipulation and a admissibility of in court. The the examination results acknowledgment contained authorization form an the defendant had been advised of his constitutional rights, as well as a statement the defendant’s con- given will,” his “own free sent to the examination results to and authorized release of the examination provided personal Sheriff Johnson. The defendant At time data and executed the authorization form. authorization, Lundgren signed the defendant told only tell the defendant he would Sheriff Johnson about During sup- at their interview. cross-examination pression Lundgren may hearing, conceded also Lundgren anyone. told the defendant he would not tell gave agreement stipulation con- then the defendant cerning admissibility of the examination court. Lundgren part stipulation When read a concern- ing Louis, the death of the defendant said he did not want take the examination.

Lundgren preliminary testified at examination again hearing suppression point at this that at “ ” said, attorney,’ the defendant T I an or think need “ ” attorney.’ Although T think I an should see Lund- gren testified he did not consider this a formal counsel, he told the defendant would what see got up he could and left the room. do Lundgren get attorney testified that his effort telling consisted of his a “Pat” to tell the sheriff of request because he did not know whom call. during that, the time he was out of inter-

testified the rogation room, agreed he and Sheriff Johnson' that ap- Lundgren return to the interview would room and Lindberg talking pear upset for be to with with testimony suggests Lundgren did defendant. This opportunity not to tell avail himself of the the Sheriff request to consult an firsthand with attorney. he told the He testified he believed defendant passed for counsel he had on the to room. he returned when gone Lundgren and defendant was was While security alone, Lindberg reasons. He entered get conversed, tried to the defend- defendant he concerning agree cooperate with the examiner ant to to Lind- polygraph preliminary, examination. At the interrogate berg room to testified he suppression hearing, Lind- However, at the defendant. berg the defendant if the defendant testified he asked “ Louis; responded, T something did the defendant “ ” know,’ to an T would have to talk don’t then added ” trial, Lindberg attorney “Abso- responded, At first.’ requested not,” lutely if defendant had when asked during attorney in the When the break interview. testimony suppression hear- confronted his at the with something ing, agreed Lindberg the defendant had said attorney, that it not a formal about an but declared request. room, Lundgren returned to the

When began Lundgren Lindberg asked to leave the room. then again. stipulation agreement de go over the polygraph fendant still refused to take examina stipulation up tion. then tore form copy. up Lund- told to tear At this time defendant gren the defendant’s refusal told the defendant something the examination meant had take him, “if fact cause and asked he in did this case hide gave ges Charmaine Louis’ death.” The agreed they previously response had tured that would indicate an affirmative answer.1

Immediately gestured following the re- affirmative Lundgren rights sponse, gave the defendant the Miranda Lundgren form and had read the form. the rights explained warnings. placed the and The defendant signed his initials after each and and dated the sentence Following form.2 the execution of the Miranda docu- ment, questioned the defendant of was about the details gave gestured relating responses the of and death Louis Lundgren to the her circumstances of death. testified him and the defendant told Louis he were bus, the and when sexual advances to angered rebuked, Louis were became and hit with he her a tire iron. He said was and that drove Louis nude gravel throwing way, pit, jewelry to the her out on the dragged gravel body grave and the to the site the pit. During the the defendant did not ask attorney. completion interrogation, for an At the McDonald, attorney Joseph the defendant asked for A. and McDonald was summoned. complaint alleging

A criminal the defendant had Louis, contrary 940.02, caused death the to Stats. sec. August was filed on A 1976. motion to dismiss orally during preliminary hearing. was denied the Fol- lowing filing information, suppress of an a motion to suppress was filed. The motion asked all the court poly- verbal statements made the defendant to the graph examiner, Lundgren, any other be- officers 1 Because the defendant was concerned about conversation being overheard, signals agreed he and had that hand responses. would substitute for vocal containing acknowledgment The form Mi waiver rights signed randa is identical form the defendant Lindberg, quoted Undersheriff above. given prior to the they and were

cause were coerced warnings. receiving Miranda February 11, Following hearing suppression on findings fact and conclusions the court filed its law on of law the defense motions. conclusions (1) because stated the confession not inadmissible rights and waived them after the defendant was told thought making he needed an at- the statement torney; (2) the methods were not such confession; (8) promise a false that would induce anyone sheriff, examiner, but made not tell confession; likely (4) cir- a false cause required rights, each and all warn- cumstances them; ings (5) given, and defendant understood were voluntary; (6) the defendant’s statement was beyond in a statement is admissible evidence reasonable doubt and as a matter of law. brought trial, jury in,

At the state before the change facts informed the court there was a regarding the circumstances of the defendant’s confes- Lindberg’s testimony sion. The court then took out of hearing jury. Lindberg’s testimony the of the was of- given testimony fered at at this time to correct he had suppression hearing. hearing, the of evidence At that only time defend- he testified the he talked to the August 24, p.m. p.m. ant was between 6 and 6:30 on after the first interviewed the defendant attending time and for while he was the defendant se- curity purposes given the and that he had the defendant rights. Lindberg Miranda testified that he was now hearing testimony suppression in aware of errors his reading hearing. transcript preliminary the of the Lindberg testified that he had seen the defendant twice August approx- on him, 24. The first time he saw at gave imately p.m., the defendant his Miranda warn- ings taking possibility and discussed the the defendant polygraph Later, polygraph when examination. minutes, for a few Lind- the defendant examiner left purposes security berg for because went into the room go in was alone. He said did the defendant interrogate. sitting in room with defend- While why ant, Lindberg he did not want asked the defendant Lindberg polygraph examination. said to take the “you already by saying, I’m think answered defendant you?” Lindberg “are The guilty.” responded saying, by saying, The “I don’t know.” answered defendant findings of and conclu- fact earlier court amended Lindberg’s by summarizing testi- corrected sions of law receiving premise in mony accepting it as implicating him in statements of the defendant evidence trial, jury re- the crime. At conclusion second-degree murder on guilty turned verdict 23,1977. March question statement im- at issue is whether

The plicating was ad- in the death of Louis the defendant in missible evidence. Arizona, supra, the defendant

Relying Miranda v. on be reversed because that his conviction must contends for counsel and honor the state failed to invalidating interrogation, his subse- continued instead quent confession. Supreme that, unless Court held warnings and waives certain receives stemming

rights warnings, statements included those interrogation trial. at are inadmissible from custodial custodial 444, defined 384 at 478-79. Court U.S. by law enforce- interrogation “questioning as initiated into cus- person taken after a has been ment officers in deprived of action tody of freedom or otherwise stated, any significant way.” 444. The also at court Id. person may question who dictum, police a in that the not any any stage process in indicates manner and at of that he consult Id. at 444-45. wants to with counsel. specifically, More the court said: attorney, “If the individual states he wants an that present. attorney At must until cease an is time, opportunity individual an to must have attorney during present confer with the and to have him any subsequent questioning. If individual cannot attorney obtain an before one he indicates that he wants speaking they respect police, to must his decision to remain silent.” Id. at 474. difficulty concluding We pre- have no this case apply. sents a proscriptions situation to which these First, polygraph Lundgren’s questioning examiner Contrary interrogation. defendant constitutes custodial safeguards suggestion, state’s constitutional can- practice engaging private be diluted indi- police. viduals to act on Second, behalf of the the de- “ ” statement, attorney,’ fendant’s T think I an or need “ ” T attorney,’ I think see should an is a re- sufficient quest 373, for 370, Micale State, counsel. 76 Wis.2d (1977). 251 N.W.2d 458 Thus the issue in this is case Lindberg whether the conduct of incriminating led statement did right fact violate the to counsel discussed in Miranda so as render the statement inadmissible evidence against the defendant at his trial. argues

The defendant per Miranda creates a se proscription further once counsel has been invoked. We do not believe requires prohibition.3 a blanket While the United States jurisdictions in-custody Other are divided over whether suspect’s request imposes per for prohibiting counsel se rule resumption police questioning attorney present. until an People Grant, See: N.Y.2d 375 n. N.E.2d (1978) (collecting cases); Note, n. Amendment, Fifth Confes sions, Request Counsel Self-Incrimination —Does Prohibit a

293 in yet contention Supreme has not addressed this Court presented case,4 to right-to-counsel were these issues a State, Leach v. 83 Wis.2d in this court and decided (1978). 495 265 N.W.2d adopt State, supra, to this court refused

In Leach v. resuming ques- police per prohibiting from se rule right tioning until an counsel invoked to is after adopt attorney present. to “a strict decision not Our doctrine,” unbending interpretation of Miranda by the of the United influenced refusal Id. at was “right remain Supreme do so in a to Court to States (1975). Michigan Mosley, 423 96 case, U.S. silent” having Mosley, been arrested The defendant did given warnings, stated that he his Miranda questions any the robberies about not want to answer question- charged. The officer ceased with which was he to ing, was taken but two hours later some regarding questioning unre- murder another room for questioning was of to This round lated the robberies. was, officer, and the defendant conducted a different rights, questioning, readvised his before which prior Subsequent Presence Coun- to the MIRANDA Waiver Wayne (1977). sel? 23 Rev. 1321 L. Innis, 440 4But see: Island S. Ct. Rhode U.S. 1978). (1979), granting (R.I. ar Innis was cert. to A.2d yet Innis, gued 30,1979, on not decided. In October and has been in-custody suspect Supreme who Court held that Rhode Island “interrogated” subsequently was had invoked the to counsel compulsion” purposes subjected Miranda “subtle when to officers, police of a addressed means conversation between charged. suspect pertaining the crime with but Applying strictly, Miranda court con 391 A.2d at 1161-62. occurred, that, unless a valid the officers’ state cluded waiver suspect’s Fifth ments constituted violation of Amendment rights. previously refused find a The court waiver as suspect, rights response Fifth when the serted Amendment conversation, such to the he would indicated officers incriminate rights then himself readvised of before the place. took actual incrimination A.2d at 1163-64. Ultimately, Mosley implicat- waived. a made statement ing Mosley in trial, himself the homicide. At contended interrogation second that constituted a violation of right against his in self-incrimination that his desire respected. appellate to remain silent was not The state agreed, reading pro- court per Miranda to create a se against reinterrogation. scription The United States Supreme Court reversed. Mosley,

In the Court determined that of the fruits questioning suspect expressed a after he a desire to re- long main silent were admissible in evidence so as it police “scrupulously was that shown had honored” right questioning. of terminate U.S. at 103-04. While did not the court enunciate ex- actly “scrupulously what was it mean, honored” did Mosley passed find that conduct in officer’s muster. so, doing interrogation the court held that of one right may who has invoked his to silence resumed be following original at in (1) least circumstances: The interrogation promptly 104, 106; terminated, is Id. at (2) questioning only passage The is resumed “after the significant period time,” 106; of a (3) of Id. at given suspect warnings complete “full and interrogation,” at the outset of the second Id. at 106; (4) A questioning, different officer resumes the Id. 104-05; (5) at The second is “re- subject stricted ... to a crime that had not been a interrogation.” presence the earlier Id. at 106. The reinterrogation these factors in a situation indicates potentially coercive effect of the at- renewed tempt question suspect may a be held to so low be justify finding through as to statement elicited questioning suspect privilege after the invoked has product compulsion,” is not primary “the concern of Miranda. State, supra,

In Leach v. declined the we in invitation to limit to those situations which a only suspect right and in- invokes to remain silent emphasized Mosley, stead indicated that the factors in determining controlling, while not could be considered whether continued violation of suspect’s 210-11, to counsel. 83 at 214. Wis.2d present, These factors were found to and the de- be subsequent fendant’s Id. statement admitted. Leach, ap- expressed reaffirm our belief, We plication Mosley’s “scrupulously honored” standard request-for-counsel situations rather than an inflex- per ible se exclusion removes irrational obstacles to legitimate police affording suspects conduct while opportunity subsequent to make reassessments of their However, interests. our differs result from Leach, surrounding for a review of the facts the defend- interrogation ant’s demonstrates “ ” ‘scrupulously to counsel was not honored.’ 83 210, quoting Michigan supra at Mosley, Wis.2d at v. 103-04.

Only present. the first of the factors is When Lundgren the defendant indicated to that he wanted an attorney, Lundgren told the defendant he would see interrogation what could do and then left the room. factor, “significant period As for the second no of time” elapsed after the defendant’s for before counsel questioning Lindberg’s questions resumed. If are viewed (as they as renewed well be, could Lindberg testified he asked the defendant if the de- something questioning fendant did to Louis), was re- virtually immediately. Lundgren’s sumed questioning, clearly interrogation, was renewed resumed after only twenty-minute a ten- to In break. circum- these stances, clearly such an interval insufficient.5 As 5 passing question, subsequent Michigan Courts on this both Mosley, (1975), prior v. 423 U.S. 96 to that decision but em- supra Mosley, 102, per- noted court at “[t]o mit continuation custodial momentary clearly pur- cessation would frustrate poses allowing repeated ques- Miranda rounds of tioning person being ques- to undermine the will of the tioned.”6 emphasized by

The third Mosley, factor the court supra 104, at was the readministration of “full and com- plete warnings at the outset of second in- terrogation.”7 findings fact, In its trial court found that read the defendant his Miranda warnings signed and. that the defendant initialed acknowledging form waiving rights prior ploying yielded approaches, varying similar answers as pre-Mosley decisions, what constitutes sufficient interval. For see, e.g., Collins, 792, (2d United v. States 462 F.2d 796-97 Cir. 1972) (one- cert. denied 409 U.S. 988 to five-hour suf intervals ficient) ; Clark, (4th 802, 1974) United States v. 499 F.2d Cir. (four insufficient); Jennings hours States, v. United 391 F.2d 512, (5th 1968) (one sufficient); Cir. hour United States v. Jackson, 39, (9th 1970) (four days sufficient); F.2d Cir. Robinson, 375, (1973) State 377-80, 87 S.D. 209 N.W.2d 374 (fifteen sufficient). supra Mosley, minutes at two hours post-Mosley held to be cases, see, For sufficient. United Jakakas, Supp. (E.D.N.Y. States 1976) (one 423 F. insufficient); three Miller, minutes Supp. United States v. 432 F. (E.D.N.Y. 1977) (two 389-90 insufficient); hours United Mearns, Supp. (D. States 1244, 1978) (ques 443 F. 1253 Del. tioning right resumed “within moments” of assertion of —insuf ficient) ; People Grant, supra 3, (ten note at 376 insuf minutes ficient) . 6 Hernandez, Accord: 1362, United States v. 574 F.2d 1368-69 (5th 1978); 107, Cir. Chansriharaj, Supp. United States v. 446 F. (S.D.N.Y. 1978); 108-09 Lewis, Supp. United States v. 425 F. 1166, (D. 1977). 1175 Conn. 7 argued It warnings has been that “a fresh set of is a mini requirement resumption mal questioning.” Kamisar, the of Williams, Massiah, “Brewer v. AND Miranda: WHAT ‘IN- IS TERROGATION’? WHEN DOES IT MATTER?” L.J. Geo. (1978). gesture question the which solicited the indi- defendant’s cating guilt. the Our review of record convinces us finding “against great weight the and clear that this evidence,” State, preponderance of the Turner v. 76 Wis. (1977), and 2d must be set N.W.2d aside. Lundgren unequivocally- suppression hearing, At the times, testified, less than four that the defendant’s no indicating guilt gestured prior response occurred to the warnings. way The record in no of renewal finding, exception with of supports trial court’s the the negative following question: Lundgren’s to the answer signing explanation the and of that document “Prior acknowledgment by Mr. second waiver form] [the regarding you question Wentela, the did [the defendant] surrounding alleged or death or circumstances facts However, we conclude murder of Louis?” Charmaine sequence testimony question that this was from of interrogation regarding “facts cir- limited time, place, surrounding (i.e., the death cumstances” question motive), method, to the of whether unrelated murder.8 committed the Finally, plain fourth fifth it is (Lind- present. officer factors are not While different berg) questioning when left the continued the room, inculpatory state- inquiries, response Lundgren’s made in ments were twenty-minute lapse. re- a ten- With resumed after gard factor, fifth second to the a sub- ... crime that had not been “restricted to a interrogation”; ques- ject all the later of the earlier tioning disappear- concerned defendant’s role appeared to the court Mosley, ance of Louis. finding acceptance trial would note court’s We not, compel itself, asserted conclusion scrupulously honored, circum to counsel view waivers, the course stances of the case. Solicited obtained in Leach, weight

assigned In to this factor.9 considerable eventually to the at- confessed while the defendant tempted rape questioned, was first about which he interrogation initially to limited round of “was second exploring with possible involvement at 211. unrelated murders.” 83 Wis.2d pro- Mosley, was not concerned with the court must follow when cedure which custodial authorities right suspect counsel.10 When counsel asserts the to in addition those requested, there are factors has been In de- be considered. enumerated must right termining suspect’s asserted to counsel whether a scrupulously honored, the court should consider has been acted to effec- the extent to which the authorities have request. suspect’s suspect tuate the Once a asserts the right authorities it cannot be found counsel, scrupulously request they before renew honored the (1) suspect afforded an unless personally opportunity to obtain the assistance of coun- sel; by (2) steps or reasonable were taken the authori- attorney suspect ties to obtain an where the did not police following custodial an ac- initiated counsel, “properly cused’s unhonored . . . viewed are skepticism.” Michigan Mosley, supra, with n. v. 432 U.S. at 110 (White, J., concurring). subsequent questioning The court noted that “about an unre quite interpreta lated homicide was consistent with a reasonable Mosley’s any questions tion of answer earlier refusal about Michigan Mosley, supra also: robberies.” at 105. See Stone, Burger Court, Sup. The Miranda Doctrine in the Ct. (“[T]his critical, Rev. fact one seems for in its absence only question is left with a mem renewed effort a different police force, ber of the same same in a different room in the only Mosley’s building, two hours assertion of his questioned”). to be 1 0 Michigan Mosley, supra 7; See: at 101 n. Id. at 110 n. (White, concurring). J.,

299 opportunity utilize the to obtain counsel or where that opportunity Additionally, was not offered.11 if the sus- pect prior is not made aware of the steps which request have been taken to accommodate his counsel, strong it is evidence that a solicited waiver right of the voluntarily, asserted to counsel was not knowingly, intelligently given. and Such information is significant suspect any assistance recon- sideration initial decision to counsel. We already Lundgren noted that told the defendant of steps comply request. were taken to with his

A leading review the circumstances to the defend- ant’s “right confession reveals that his to counsel” was respected not repeat in this case. We our caution that presence the absence or is factors controlling; exclusively Michigan Mosley, supra, v. and State, supra, Leach v. purport do not to establish tests applied woodenly. which can inquiry be The critical right remains: Was the scrupu- to counsel lously honored? bar, case at we conclude that it respected has not been and that the defendant’s state- ments are not the result of a waiver of that “vol- untarily, knowingly intelligently” made. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 compelled U.S. at 444. Thus we are to hold concerning the defendant’s statements his involve- ment in the death of Louis were obtained in violation of rights his Miranda suppressed. should have been Lundgren’s readministration of the Miranda warn- ings does not render the defendant’s admis- confession warnings sible. renewed dispel alone do not Lundgren’s coercive effect questioning. of continued subsequent interrogation scrutiny does not survive under analysis above; employed inseparable it is from the illegal questioning which occurred. The defendant’s de- People Grant, supra Accord: v. 3, note at 376-77. is the fruit of

tailed confession tainted interrogation by Lundgren unconstitutional earlier States, equally Harrison inadmissible. v. United ; Gilpin 219, (1968) States, 222-23 United U.S. ; (5th 1969) Harney 638, 641-42 v. United F.2d Cir. 586, (5th 1969) ; States, 407 F.2d 589-90 Cir. United Twomey, ex rel. Williams v. 467 F.2d States ; 1972) States, (7th 375 F.2d Evans United Cir. Massey, (8th 1967); United States v. 360-61 Cir. (M.D. 1977). Supp. 856-59, 862 Fla. F. Accordingly, holding, our we we reverse. Because of defendant’s other contentions. do not reach the Judgment By reversed and cause remand- the Court. — trial, a with instruction that the defend- ed for new suppressed ant’s confession be as evidence.

COFFEY, (concurring). case, In J. this the mistakes setting department in aside of the sheriff’s have resulted obviously guilty us the conviction of an defendant. Let nothing hope people they state more have cost the this agree expense than a trial. I that the defend- of new questioning request ant’s for counsel before further agree scrupulously I confession honored. though it was must excluded for this even reason, be voluntarily given freely and a of fact. The as matter Supreme decisions of the States Court in Miranda United Arizona, Michigan Mosley, (1966) 384 U.S. 436 controlling. (1975) directly point are in U.S. however, agree, majority’s I do not discussion with Mosley applied as of this time factor the facts disagree majority case. I also with the factors requires to be considered “in addition” to the five Mos- ' ley factors. says significant majority period

The that no of time elapsed requested between the times the defendant coun- questioning sel and the time evi- resumed. The left the room dence shows that convey request for counsel gone sheriff’s He was 10 to minutes. officer. (1978) State, Leach v. 83 Wis.2d 265 N.W.2d approved given court this a waiver of counsel which was questioning. pur- after a to 20 minute break The pose factor, Mosley time I is it, understand as cooling-off period to allow the defendant before again waives his to remain silent. The majority acknowledges factors are not to be woodenly applied; yet, by its failure to determine wheth- ap- er the will fact undermined, it plies the if time factor as carved in stone. introduces, majority hope ap- prospective

The I only, plication determining rules for alternative whether scrupulously the authorities honored the defend- renewing interrogation. ant’s for counsel before defendant attorney, must be allowed call an or call the authorities shall one for If the him. authorities alternative, they choose the must second advise him steps they request. have taken to accommodate his Suppose indigent. pay is to Who for the Suppose stationhouse consultation? a defendant is not indigent. pay lawyer Is he to for a not of his own choosing, required or are the authorities to contact the lawyer requests? Further, if the defendant is the subject inquiry of a area, criminal in an unfamiliar are lawyer’s the authorities to choose a name indiscrim- inately phone subject from the book and thus be challenge lawyer proves future ineffective counsel if the unacceptable? to be Could the officer also then sus- be pect chasing soliciting legal of representa- or ambulance my for tion the accused? It is firm conviction that law officers, light protection, enforcement for their own myriad lawsuits, challenges of the accusations subjected stay they to, have been should clear any implications appearance im- such and avoid the propriety. problem language This arises under the used majority opinion in the if law are enforcement officers securing legal any prisoner. to aid in the assistance pay Furthermore, then forced for a lawyer choosing? predicament not of his Consider the lawyer attorney, who is contacted. Is the under oath, obligated to come to the station without know- ing knowing client, pay without will for his fee who may attempting or what incur difficulties when collect the same ? majority

The new factors announced not do complement They replacements. factors. are effect, they per se constitute rule that no further questioning place suspect requested take has attorney. required any These are not deci- factors Supreme sion of the United States Court. I do not feel they necessary are They to this decision. should be adopted by majority as the law of this state.

I am authorized to state that T. Justice CONNOR joins in this HANSEN concurrence.

Case Details

Case Name: Wentela v. State

Court Name: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 1, 1980

Citation: 290 N.W.2d 313

Docket Number: 77-376-CR

Court Abbreviation: Wis.