On Point: E. Administrative searches

Questions presented:

(1) Whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and

(2) Whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry, and if so, whether the ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry.

State v. Chase A.T., 2014AP260, District 4, 9/4/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A student’s tip to an assistant principal that a bathroom “smelled like marijuana smoke” and that a student named Chase walked out of the bathroom immediately before the tipster smelled the smoke provided reasonable grounds for the assistant principal to search Chase. In addition, the search of Chase was not excessive in scope. Thus, his motion to suppress was properly denied.

State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell, 2014 WI 101, 8/1/14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

In a case that expands the power of probation agents to search probationers’ computers and similar digital devices, the supreme court holds that the search of Purtell’s computer by his probation agent was reasonable because: 1) the computer was contraband, as Purtell was prohibited from possessing it by the rules of his probation; and 2) the agent had reasonable grounds to believe the computer might contain other items the probationer was prohibited from possessing—in this case, communications with underage girls or unauthorized Myspace accounts.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the state’s Petition for Review)

Whether the court of appeals went beyond the boundaries of an appellate court when it reversed the trial court’s decision based on a sua sponte argument–and subsequent appellate factual determinations–that was never presented to the trial court.

Purtell was on probation for animal cruelty convictions, and as a condition of probation was allowed access to computers only for school or work.

Maryland v. King, USSC No. 12-207, 6/3/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012)

In a decision validating the collection of DNA from at least some persons before they are even convicted of a crime, a divided Supreme Court has concluded that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause for a “serious”

State v. Jeremiah J. Purtell, 2012AP1307-CR, District 2, 3/7/13  (not recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/20/13.  Case activity.

This case concerns a probation agent’s search of the defendant’s computers.  Following a conviction for 2 counts of animal cruelty, a court placed the defendant on probation and imposed a condition that he not own or possess a computer. 

Question Presented (from cert petition):

Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012))

Scotusblog page

Under Maryland law, DNA Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §2-504,

State v. Marilee F. Devries, 2012 WI App 119 (recommended for publication); case activity

Devries’ probation agent, after detecting alcohol on her breath during a visit at the probation office, had a law enforcement officer administer a preliminary breath test. One thing led to another and she was convicted of OWI. She challenges the PBT as a police, rather than probation, search because the probation officer wasn’t involved in the test,

Wisconsin State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2012 WI 60, on certification review ; case activity

Extended Supervision Conditions – Suspicionless Searches 

A condition of extended supervision “that allows any law enforcement officer to search [Tally]’s person, vehicle, or residence for firearms, at any time and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion,” was tailored to the particular facts and thus neither overbroad nor unrelated to Tally’s rehabilitative needs.

State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2010AP1398-CR, rev. granted 10/25/11

on certification request (District 3/4); for Rowan: LaZotte, Paul G.; case activity

Issue (from Certification): 

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person, vehicle,