State v. Noah Andrew Christoff

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 4, 2019
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2018AP1466-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2015CF513

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

NOAH ANDREW CHRISTOFF,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Croix County:
EDWARD F. VLACK III, Judge. Affirmed.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

¶1 PER CURIAM. Noah Christoff appeals from a judgment
convicting him of possession of amphetamine with intent to sell. The sole issue
No. 2018AP1466-CR

on appeal is whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it
refused to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. Christoff
contends the search warrant was improperly obtained by a law enforcement officer
from an adjoining state in the absence of a statutory mutual aid agreement. We
conclude the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that
suppression was not a proper remedy for the alleged statutory violation. We
therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Sergeant Shannon Sills and officer Jeff Schwab both worked for the
City of St. Paul Police Department in Minnesota. Sills was investigating a series
of burglaries in which Christoff was a suspect. Schwab was assigned to work with
the North Star United States Marshall Task Force. In that capacity, Schwab was
tasked with locating Christoff for several outstanding drug-related arrest warrants,
as well as in connection with the burglaries.

¶3 On November 2, 2015, Sills informed Schwab that a vehicle
associated with Christoff had been spotted in a motel parking lot in Hudson,
Wisconsin. Schwab proceeded to the location and observed Christoff carrying
items back and forth between the vehicle and the motel. Schwab contacted the
St. Croix County Sheriff’s Department, and its deputies subsequently arrested
Christoff at the motel. Following Christoff’s arrest, Sills applied to the St. Croix
County Circuit Court for a warrant to search Christoff’s motel room and vehicle,
based in part upon observations Schwab made.

¶4 Christoff moved to suppress evidence seized during the execution of
the search warrant. Christoff asserted that Minnesota law does not provide a peace
officer with the authority to request a search warrant in a foreign jurisdiction, and

2
No. 2018AP1466-CR

that Wisconsin law does not permit a law enforcement officer from a foreign
jurisdiction to apply for a search warrant in this state without a mutual aid
agreement in effect. The circuit court denied the suppression motion based in part
upon a conclusion that Wisconsin law does not actually require an applicant for a
search warrant to be a law enforcement officer. Christoff appeals that
determination.

DISCUSSION

¶5 WISCONSIN STAT. § 968.12 (2017-18)1 sets forth the procedure for
obtaining a search warrant. The statute refers to what steps a “person” applying
for the warrant should take, without providing any specific qualifications or
requirements that the applicant must satisfy. Sec. 968.12(2), (3)(b)1., (3)(b)2. If
the criteria for obtaining a warrant have been satisfied, the judge shall issue an
order directing “a law enforcement officer” to conduct a search of the designated
person or property. Sec. 986.12(1).

¶6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 175.46(2) authorizes a law enforcement agency
from an adjacent state to enter into a mutual aid agreement with a law enforcement
agency from this state. Such an agreement allows the law enforcement officers
from the agency in the adjacent state to “act with some or all of the arrest and
other police authority” of a Wisconsin law enforcement officer while within the
Wisconsin law enforcement agency’s jurisdiction. Sec. 175.46(2)(a). It is
uncontested that the St. Croix County Sheriff’s Department did not execute a
mutual aid agreement with any law enforcement agency from Minnesota.

1
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise
noted.

3
No. 2018AP1466-CR

¶7 On appeal, Christoff contends the circuit court’s interpretation of the
search warrant statute, WIS. STAT. § 968.12, conflicts with the mutual aid statute,
WIS. STAT. § 175.46(2). Specifically, he argues that allowing any person,
including a law enforcement officer from another state, to apply for a search
warrant in this state undermines the statutory procedure that law enforcement
officers from other states are required to follow. Christoff suggests the only
reasonable way to reconcile the two statutes is to hold that the person applying for
a search warrant must be a law enforcement officer either licensed in this state or
acting pursuant to a mutual aid agreement. We conclude it is unnecessary to
address the merits of Christoff’s statutory interpretation argument because
suppression is not an available remedy to him under the facts of this case in any
event.

¶8 First, the exclusionary rule exists to deter police misconduct, not to
correct judicial error. State v. Kerr, 2018 WI 87, ¶21, 383 Wis. 2d 306, 913
N.W.2d 787. In our view, the relevant constitutional conduct by police was the
seizure of the evidence by the Wisconsin law enforcement officers. Even if the
circuit court erred in issuing the search warrant based upon the application of a
“person” who was not a Wisconsin law enforcement officer, the Wisconsin law
enforcement officers who executed the warrant did nothing wrong in relying upon
it in good faith.

¶9 Second, evidence obtained in violation of a statute must be
suppressed only when necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute. State v.
Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, ¶62, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611. The purpose
of the search warrant statute is to codify the constitutional requirements of the
Fourth Amendment—namely, to ensure that a warrant is issued by a neutral and
detached magistrate, that it is based upon probable cause, and that it states with

4
No. 2018AP1466-CR

particularity the places to be searched and items to be seized. State v. Tate, 2014
WI 89, ¶¶28-30, 357 Wis. 2d 172, 849 N.W.2d 798. An alleged violation of the
mutual aid agreement statute does not undermine any of those requirements.

¶10 We therefore conclude the circuit court properly exercised its
discretion by denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the
search warrant.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE
809.23(1)(b)5.

5