Pubdate: Wed, 13 May 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 
Contact:  
Fax: (414) 224-8280 
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/ 
Author: Richard P. Jones of the Journal Sentinel staff

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)