Seventh Circuit: Plaintiff alleged viable claim that civil rights were violated if officers entered home to arrest him based on a temporary felony want, but without a warrant.
Ryan W. Milbeck v. Allison George, et al., Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals No. 25-1061, 3/30/26 (per curiam)
Ryan Milbeck filed a federal civil suit alleging the defendants – including the Village of Rothschild, Kenosha County, and individual law enforcement officers – violated his civil rights by entering his home and arresting him without a warrant or probable cause. Milbeck appealed the district court’s order dismissing all claims because the officers had probable cause to arrest Milbeck and some of the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity. (Slip op. at p. 2). Although the case primarily concerned the pleading requirements for federal civil rights claims, which are beyond this publication’s purview, the Seventh Circuit provided a useful primer on Wisconsin’s temporary felony want procedure.
Milbeck’s ex-wife reported to the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department that he violated a restraining order prohibiting contact with her. A Kenosha County detective issued a “temporary felony want,” although she referred to it as a warrant. Milbeck alleged that law enforcement entered his home without his consent and claimed they had a warrant for his arrest. He was detained and charged with stalking, but the State voluntarily dismissed the charges at the preliminary hearing. (Slip op. at pp. 2-4).
The Seventh Circuit found that Milbeck raised a viable claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officers entered his home without a valid arrest warrant and the case was therefore improperly dismissed by the district court. (Slip op. at p. 7). The Court explained that Wisconsin’s “temporary felony want,” which it described as an “electronic wanted poster” or “all-points bulletin,” is a database alert that officers in a given jurisdiction believe a suspect has committed a felony and “there is information sufficient to support an arrest warrant, but that no arrest warrant has yet been issued.” (Slip op. at p. 3). A want does not comply with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for a valid warrant because it was not issued by a “neutral and detached magistrate upon a showing of probable cause.” (Slip op. at p. 7). Treating a “temporary felony want” as if it was a warrant would therefore allow police to issue warrants to themselves and “reduce the Fourth Amendment to a nullity.” (Slip op. at p. 7).
The Court concluded that Milbeck’s allegation that the officers entered his home to arrest him without a valid warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance was sufficient to establish a claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. (Slip op. at p. 8).