What is an inventory search and how does it work?

An inventory search is an exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement to be able to conduct a search of a vehicle under specific circumstances. It is allowed when a vehicle is impounded and in police custody, primarily to protect the vehicle owner’s property and the police from liability for lost or stolen items. The search must be reasonable and conducted according to a standardized policy and procedure of the Sheriff’s Office.

For example: if a vehicle is impounded as part of an investigation, and there are thousands of dollars in cash in the center console - that cash is documented, photographed, and secured into evidence for safekeeping so it doesn’t get stolen or misplaced. NOW, when you conduct a search like this in place of a search warrant, it becomes illegal. If while completing an inventory search, you locate something that might be possible evidence - you have to then apply for a search warrant through a Judge. If the Judge grants the search warrant based on probable cause, then you can now go and seize said suspected evidence.

The facts don’t lie.

That is not what happened here. In this case, a deputy had gotten direction from a supervisor to conduct an inventory search. He had not conducted an inventory search before, so this was rather new to him. When the deputy wrote his report, he wrote, “It was also decided that Peter’s red Pontiac would be towed and taken to the Manawa evidence garage to be inventoried and searched for any possible evidence related to past thefts with Peter.” You cannot conduct an inventory search to look for evidence. You must obtain a search warrant. This would be illegal and unconstitutional.

Fast forward to when the report is reviewed by a detective captain. The detective captain removed the “for any possible evidence related to past thefts with Peter.” from the authoring deputy’s sentence and ultimately submitted it to the Waupaca County District Attorney’s Office. She did this without informing the authoring deputy of the change. The deputy later testifies to this under oath. The detective captain also testifies, admitting that they make changes to deputies reports often.

The detective sergeant, who commonly reviews deputies reports, noticed had noticed this discrepancy. He then reported this misconduct to his superiors but he in return was disciplined. Sheriff Wilz later testified that they make “corrections” to reports all of the time. He also testified under oath that if he found out who the “whistleblower” was on this misconduct, he would fire them. When asked the same question again under oath some minutes later, his answer was different. He said he wasn’t going to fire the “whistleblower”. Therefore, committing perjury on the stand.

The Waupaca County District Attorney, Veronica Isherwood, had issued dozens of Brady letters to defense attorneys representing clients in Waupaca County. This was to advise them that their client’s case may be affected based on the above dishonest conduct that had just occurred. This is mandatory of prosecutors to do anytime there is dishonesty that needs to be addressed.

Wilz Brady Info

Sheriff Wilz, instead of making things better, defended his staff who violated this persons constitutional rights. If he would have just simply said, “Hey, we made a mistake. Let’s make things right and make sure this never happens again.”, this would have been barely news worthy. Things would have gotten right back to normal business. BUT, instead, he blames the detectives who brought this to light and DA Isherwood for calling him out on it.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, a neighboring county got involved in reviewing this situation and the Department of Justice - DCI division investigated it. DCI released a 600+ page document with their findings, including court testimony, statements, reports, etc. I obtained it via open records. See below:

DCI Case Report

While this was still in the process of being reviewed and handled, the DA’s office asked us to sign a form swearing that our reports were true and accurate - but Sheriff Wilz ordered us not to cooperate with the DA’s Office.

Also, while all 3 detectives were out on leave for reporting the altering of a police report - Sheriff’s Office Administration put evidence tape across each of their office doors. (No photos available.) They also parked their squad cars in view of the public and other employees and placed tape across their doors as well (Photos attached below). Us employees walked past these spectacles almost every shift. What was the point of doing this with the evidence tape on their doors? All they did was reported illegal behavior (altering of a report). They didn’t violate any policies or commit any crimes. To us, it was a strong message from administration saying, “Stay the course, or this could happen to you too.”