On Point blog, page 7 of 9
State v. Lee Anthony Batt, 2010 WI App 155
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply
OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing
Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,
Implied Consent Law – Non-English-Speaking Driver
State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp.
Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed obtained the translation services of another officer at the time of arrest,
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84
Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2008 WI App 131; for Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch,SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedent
¶2 Dearborn maintains, and the State concedes, that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
Search-Incident: Automobile; Sufficiency of Evidence: Manufacturing THC
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Automobile
By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order:
¶9 Here,
State v. Michael D. Sporle, 2009AP2737-CR, District IV, 4/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sporle: Robert J. Jackson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Implied Consent Procedure, § 343.305(2)
¶12 The officer complied with her obligations to provide the “Informing the Accused” information and to make an alternative test available. The officer informed Sporle that, if he took the requested test, he could have an alternative test free of charge,
Exigency – “Protective Sweep” as Incident of Destruction of Evidence
State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09
For Lee: Robert E. Haney
Issue/Holding: Police investigating complaint of drug dealing were entitled to enter apartment and conduct “protective sweep” when they saw, through the open front door, clear evidence of drugs:
¶13 The officers who presented themselves at Lee’s front door were investigating a complaint of drug activity at Lee’s address.
Arrest – Search Incident – Search Incident to Arrest – Warrantless Blood Test – Generally
State v. Mitchell A. Lange, 2009 WI 49, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lange: Steven M. Cohen
Issue/Holding:
¶2 We are asked to determine whether a law enforcement officer complied with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when obtaining a blood sample from the defendant without a warrant to do so. Our prior cases establish that a warrantless blood sample taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer is consistent with the Fourth Amendment under the following circumstances: “(1) the blood draw is taken to obtain evidence of intoxication from a person lawfully arrested for a drunk-driving related violation or crime,
Arrest, Search Incident to – Timing
State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 We note at the outset that Officer Hahn testified he did not place Pickering under arrest until after he had performed searches of the eyeglass case and Denk’s clothing. This fact does not alter our analysis. In State v.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” Doctrine: Search of Canister
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶35 Accepting for the moment the State’s position that articulable facts exist to demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion that other persons may be lurking in the defendant’s bedroom who would pose a danger to the officers and that a protective search of the bedroom was therefore justified,
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Chimel “Immediate Control” Rule – Inapplicable Where Defendant Removed from Scene
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where the defendant had already been removed from the premises following his arrest, a search of his bedroom couldn’t be justified under a search-incident rationale:
¶51 The State contends that Officer Garcia’s second search of the defendant’s bedroom was justified as a search incident to arrest under the Chimel standard because the bedroom was “within [the defendant’s] immediate presence or control when he barricaded himself in the bedroom and was out of the police officers’