noting that “the goals of the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrines are to curb ‘illegal governmental activity,”’ and concluding that “it is appropriate that the exclusionary rule bars physical fruits obtained from a deliberate Miranda violation under Article I, Section 8” of Wisconsin Constitution
How later courts described this case
- noting that “the goals of the exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrines are to curb ‘illegal governmental activity,”’ and concluding that “it is appropriate that the exclusionary rule bars physical fruits obtained from a deliberate Miranda violation under Article I, Section 8” of Wisconsin Constitution
- agreeing "wholeheartedly" with the Patane dissenting opinion, stating that Patane extends "an unjustifiable invitation to law enforcement officers to flout Miranda where there may be physical evidence to be gained" (quoting Patane, 542 U.S. at 647 (Souter, J., dissenting))
- explaining decisions like Eason as part of a trend toward a more independent role for state constitutions in protecting individual rights
- noting that preserving judicial integrity refers to preventing the judicial process from being subverted by law enforcement officers' unconstitutional actions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVID T. PROSSER, J.
¶ 108. {dissenting). I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in State v. Dubose, 2005 WI 126 , 285 Wis. 2d 143 , 699 N.W.2d 582 .