What It Means To Serve The Law
by State Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler
As we move past Labor Day, and into the routines of fall – kids and grandkids in school, vacations in the rear view mirror, watching the Packers on Sundays, and the Brewers in a pennant race – I have been reflecting on what it means to serve the law. For the past 15 years, I’ve served on “the bench,” in Milwaukee’s busy Municipal Court, in state Circuit Court, and for the last three years, on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
You, the members of WPPA, are also engaged in public service, serving the law, by enforcing our laws, investigating criminal activity, and protecting the safety of our communities. Every day, you put your safety at risk as you make sure the world is a better place for each and every one of us. With two members of law enforcement in my family, I am keenly aware of the sacrifices that each of you has to make. First, let me thank you for your work. My wife, two daughters, stepson, and four grandchildren also thank you for keeping the peace.
My guess is that our jobs in many ways are similar, in that from what I’ve seen of police work, much of it revolves around dispute resolution and achieving a fair result. For whatever reason, people can’t always resolve the issues that arise between them, and you have to step in. You resolve disputes on the street; we resolve disputes in court. We all hope that crime does not occur, and that the presence of well-funded, well-trained police, coupled with strong communities, will prevent crimes from being committed.
Of course, sometimes crimes do occur. You do have to go out and identify and arrest the perpetrators, and they will be prosecuted.
By the time a few of these cases reach the Supreme Court, the cases we see have been often reduced to complex and narrow questions of law, and the people in the cases appear as names on a page. The victims of crime, and the criminals themselves, rarely appear in the Supreme Court. The arguments are on intricate, abstract questions of constitutional law, and the interplay between state statutes and common law and the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.
However, the decisions of the Supreme Court do affect how you’re able to do your job. And you should be confident that when your association writes a brief about an element of the law in a particular case, we carefully consider the arguments advanced, as we do for each litigant that submits written arguments to our court.
As I run for retention to the bench next spring, you’re going to hear a lot of labels thrown around. Let me say for myself that as a judicial officer sitting in judgment in a case, I must be fair, neutral, detached, impartial, and open-minded in every case. No judge should ever decide a case before the arguments are heard, the facts are considered, and the law has been properly applied. A judge must ensure that the law is properly interpreted and followed. Any judge who has decided an issue prior to hearing it – by definition – can’t be impartial.
Let me give you an example. In a recent case, a police officer observed a vehicle swerving within its own lane, stopped the car, and after administering a field sobriety test, arrested the driver for drunken driving. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and said that the mere act of swerving within a lane (as opposed to between lanes) was not enough to warrant the traffic stop. In this case, both the defense and the prosecution came in front of the Supreme Court asking for a bright-line rule – does swerving within your own lane always constitute grounds to conduct a traffic stop, or never?
Well, you know as I do that in every situation, the police consider the totality of the circumstances. Wisconsin law is clear – police should consider the situation as a whole and make a reasoned judgment. In this case, the evidence was clear that the police had acted appropriately, and I voted with the majority to reinstate the conviction.
If you listened to talk radio, they got the story wrong, and reported that we had reversed the conviction, and were letting criminals roam the street with impunity. Of course, we had reversed the Court of Appeals in this case, not the original conviction. Instead of applying a bright-line rule, we applied the Fourth Amendment’s totality of the circumstances test as we reinstated the conviction. You want a Supreme Court that rules with limits, that is fair and balanced, and that follows the law, and as long as I’m there, that’s what you’ll get.
I hope to have your support as I run for retention. Please feel free to be in touch with my campaign office at 414-755-2067 or at campaign@louisbutler.com with any questions, comments, or concerns. I look forward to meeting you on the campaign trail!
