(concurring). This case raises only the issue of prosecutive merit under sec. 48.18(4) Stats., not under sec. 48.18(5) (b).
I write to point out that the phrase prosecutive merit may be used in different senses in secs. 48.18 (4) and 48.-18 (5) (b). See In the Interest of T.R.B., 109 Wis. 2d 179, 185-86, n 10, 11, 325 N.W.2d 329 (19.82); State’s Brief, *765In the Interest of P.A.K., case no. 83-176, at pp. 28-29, 119 Wis. 2d 871, 350 N.W.2d 677 (1984). The state may, in some cases, therefore have to produce different types of proof to make a showing of prosecutive merit under sec. 48.18(4) and under sec. 48.18(5) (b).
Under sec. 48.18(4) the circuit court determines whether it has jurisdiction to waive, and a finding of prosecutive merit is functionally similar to a finding of probable cause in the course of a preliminary hearing. Reliable information in the petitions may suffice.
Under sec. 48.18(5) the circuit court determines whether it should exercise its discretion to waive. The circuit court’s consideration of prosecutive merit under subsection (5) (b), unlike under subsection (4), may include an evaluation of the state’s chances of success in its prosecution of the crime upon which the waiver petition is based, including the likelihood of suppression of evidence. Cf. Youth Policy and Law Center, Inc., Wisconsin Juvenile Court Practice in Delinquency and Status Offense Cases sec. 9.11, p. 145 (Melli ed. 1978).*
The Institute of Judicial Administration — American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards concludes that “evidence which could not be the basis for an adjudication should not be the basis for waiver.” Standards Relating To Transfer Between Courts, Commentary to sec. 2.2 B, pp. 38-39 (1980). See also Davis, Legal and Procedural Issues Related to the Waiver Process, in Academy for Contemporary Problems Project, Major Issues in Juvenile Justice Information and Training, Readings in Public Policy, pp. 235-36 (1981).