STATE HIGH COURT OKS SOME EVIDENCE EVEN IF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED

The state Supreme Court today created a "good faith exception" to rules
that exclude evidence obtained through invalid search warrants.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who dissented, called it a "momentous"
decision. Justice David Prosser, also dissenting, called it a "sea change"
in the law.

In a 4-3 decision, the high court said the good faith exception applies
where prosecutors can show police were reasonably relying on a warrant
issued by a magistrate.

The state must show that police had conducted a "significant investigation"
and a review by an officer with knowledge about the requirements of
probable cause, wrote Justice Patrick Crooks.

The case stemmed from a no-knock search warrant that authorized police to
search a Beloit apartment for drugs. Both the Rock County Circuit Court and
the district Court of Appeals threw out the evidence because the affidavit
for the search warrant did not justify a no-knock entry. The high court
agreed the no-knock provision was invalid.

"However, we conclude that the evidence should not be suppressed even
though the no-knock portion of the warrant was invalid," Crooks wrote.

In his dissent, Prosser said that "a few minutes of good police work or
careful magistrate inquiry could have prevented the problem" in this case.

"The court resolves the issues by burying almost 80 years of legal
precedent to create a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule,"
Prosser wrote.

"Because the small gain that may come out of this sea change in our law
does not outweigh the potential loss of liberty to our citizens, and
because this case offers a feeble excuse to make such a far-reaching
change, I respectfully dissent."

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley joined Prosser's dissent.

Even the majority seemed to have doubts about the specific case.

"Admittedly, this is a close call," wrote Crooks, noting the state court
last year recognized the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in these areas.

Abrahamson was sharply critical of the move, saying it was "disingenuous"
to force the state to show that police had done a significant investigation
and the work had been reviewed by an officer trained in probable cause.

"The exception betrays Wisconsin's longstanding commitment to excluding
illegally seized evidence from use at trial," Abrahamson wrote.