Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Popenhagen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 2008No. 2006AP1114-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceAnnette Kingsland Ziegler, J.

¶ 133. {concurring in part, dissenting in part). The majority decision, which suppresses both the documents and the statements, proceeds much further than necessary. I agree that the circuit court has authority to preclude the documents and to require the State to go through the correct process to obtain them for future use. However, I disagree with doing so on a statutory or constitutional basis. If there is such authority to preclude the documents, it lies in the court's inherent authority to administer justice. Under the facts presented, however, no authority exists for suppressing the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. State Ex Rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  3. United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. State v. HolmesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State v. SchneidewindWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API