HIGH COURT OVERTURNS DRUG CONVICTION

Madison -- A sharply divided Supreme Court overturned a Whitewater
man's drug conviction Tuesday, saying police lacked authority to
search his place even though the man's father-in-law, who owned the
property, allowed the search.

In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that authorities, acting on the
father-in-law's word instead of a search warrant, were wrong to assume
they could legally enter the man's living quarters to look for drugs.

Writing for the majority, Justice Janine Geske said the court was
troubled by the officers' actions. She said they should have paused to
ask the father-in-law a series of questions -- whether, for example,
he was free to enter the man's quarters.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jon Wilcox said the ruling would
hamper law enforcement by requiring authorities to ask a litany of
questions.

Instead of imposing a rigid, impractical standard, the court should
let common sense prevail, he said.

On April 9, 1995, Robert Garlock let two Whitewater police officers
and a Walworth County deputy sheriff search his property for drugs.
Officers had arrested his son Scott Garlock for possession of
psilocybin mushrooms, a controlled substance.

According to court records:

Scott Garlock told authorities that he bought the drugs from a man
named John Zattera and that Zattera was staying with his family.

The Garlock property includes a detached garage with a loft. Robert
Garlock's daughter and son-in-law, Dawn and John Kieffer, slept in the
loft above the garage, and at the time, Zattera was staying with them.

Before entering the garage, officers asked Robert Garlock whether the
Kieffers paid rent. He said they sometimes helped pay the electric
bill but that there was no lease. Officers also learned the loft had
no plumbing or telephone.

Garlock led authorities to the garage, up the stairs and through the
loft door, which was unlocked.

Authorities and the Kieffers disagree on what happened next. Dawn
Kieffer testified that after the officers entered the loft, she asked
them whether they had a warrant.

She said they told her they didn't need one because her father let
them search the property. The officers testified they didn't remember
her asking them about a warrant.

In their search, officers found Zattera sleeping on the couch in the
living room with drug paraphernalia on a coffee table.

In the Kieffers' bedroom, one officer found several bags containing
psilocybin mushrooms, which police said John Kieffer admitted buying
from Zattera.

Kieffer ultimately pleaded guilty to drug possession but later
appealed, arguing that he in effect had a landlord-tenant relationship
with his father-in-law and that his father-in-law could not give
authorities permission to search the loft.

The court held that, to some extent, the Kieffers had established a
separate household in the garage loft. In the majority opinion, Geske
wrote that as a property owner Robert Garlock did not have authority
to allow the search.

However, Geske said the authorities asked only whether the Kieffers
paid rent and then acted on what she described as meager information
provided by Garlock.

If Garlock seemed upset and eager to rid his property of any drugs,
she said, his response may have been more because of his son-in-law's
arrest rather than a general anti-drug attitude.

"The officers could have asked whether Garlock considered himself to
be the Kieffers' 'landlord,' " she said. "The officers also could have
asked whether the loft had a lock on the door, and if so, whether
Garlock had a key to it."

In his dissent, Wilcox said the officers had reason to believe the
loft was more akin to a bedroom of the Garlock house than a separate
home. Such a rigid approach reduces the discretion of officers in the
field, he said.

Checked-by: trikydik@inil.com (trikydik)