On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW makes it easier for the state to satisfy the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule
State v. Mastella L. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, 7/1/16, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals, 2015 WI App 49, 363 Wis. 2d 553, 866 N.W.2d 768; case activity (including briefs)
Despite the “flagrant” and “reprehensible” violations of Jackson’s Fifth Amendment rights by police, the supreme court holds that physical evidence seized based in part on information obtained from those violations should not be suppressed because the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. In the course of this ruling, the court alters Wisconsin’s long-established inevitable discovery standard and refuses to rule out using the doctrine in cases where the police intentionally violate a suspect’s rights.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Dog Sniff, Wisconsin Constitution
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles:
¶22 We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding:
¶20 Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen
Issue/Holding:
¶18 Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis.
Warrants – No-Knock: Unannounced Entry, not Authorized by Warrant but Permissible Where Target not Inside
State v. Thomas William Brady, 2007 WI App 33, PFR filed 2/13/07
For Brady: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where the target of a search was not at home when the police forcibly entered pursuant to a search warrant, their unannounced entry did not, although not authorized by the warrant, violate the fourth amendment.
¶13 The first consideration is the safety of the police and others.
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11: “Actually Yielded to Authority” Test for Seizure
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶19 … (T)his court ordinarily adopts and follows the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.…
¶27 Young, however, argues that we should reject Hodari D. and interpret Article I,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11
State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3:
Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, State v.