{"id":19795,"date":"2015-12-04T13:46:36","date_gmt":"2015-12-04T18:46:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19795"},"modified":"2017-04-08T08:36:22","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T13:36:22","slug":"wi-confrontation-clause-does-not-apply-to-suppression-hearings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19795","title":{"rendered":"WI: Confrontation clause does not apply to suppression hearings"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cP11 … [We conclude the Confrontation Clause simply does not apply to pretrial hearings such as the suppression hearing at issue in this case, and the circuit court’s reliance upon the hearsay evidence from the recording was not improper. [\u00b6] P12 Zamzow next asserts that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, \u2018it would be fundamentally unfair to allow the trial court to make a finding of constitutional fact solely on a statement that cannot be tested for defects in perception.\u2019 He states that the evidence from the recording was unreliable because the officer who made the statement was not able to be cross-examined. While Zamzow devotes numerous pages to his due process approach, he admits the approach is \u2018novel\u2019 and identifies no case law supporting it. We could simply decline to consider his due process contention for this latter reason alone, but we nonetheless choose to address it. See State v. McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, \u00b630, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322 (appellate court \u2018may choose\u2019 whether to consider arguments not supported by references to legal authority).\u201d State v. Zamzow<\/a>, State v. Zamzow, 2016 WI App 7, 366 Wis. 2d 562, 874 N.W.2d 328 (2016), aff’d 2017 WI 29<\/a>, 2017 Wisc. LEXIS 168 (April 6, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cP11 … [We conclude the Confrontation Clause simply does not apply to pretrial hearings such as the suppression hearing at issue in this case, and the circuit court’s reliance upon the hearsay evidence from the recording was not improper. [\u00b6] … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-proof"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19795"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26682,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19795\/revisions\/26682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}