On Point: 1. Consent

State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Munroe’s acquiescence, under false pretenses, to police entry of his motel room vitiated any consent for their subsequent search of that room, where Munroe refused their initial request to search.

Holding:

¶11 The officers entered Munroe’s room for, ostensibly, one purpose: to check his identification.

State v. Jennifer K. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 621 N.W.2d 891, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals.
For Matejka: James B. Connell

Issue: “(W)hether, under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, a driver’s consent to a police officer’s search of a vehicle extends to a passenger’s jacket left in the vehicle at the time of the search.”

Holding:

¶35 Here,

State v. Michael Wilson, 229 Wis.2d 256, 600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wilson: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Consent to search was mere acquiescence and therefore involuntary. (“Depriving a defendant of necessities is an indicia that consent is involuntary.”)

County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis.2d 293, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999), reversing Jefferson Co. v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d 424, 588 N.W.2d 267 (Ct. App. 1988)
For Renz: Stephen E. Mays.

Issue: Whether an officer is required to have probable cause to arrest before asking a suspect to submit to a preliminary breath test.

Holding: The “overall scheme” allows an officer to use a PBT to determine whether to arrest a suspect,

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: The number of officers present does not, by itself, conclusively demonstrate coercion, but is a factor to consider among others. Thus, consent was validly given following a valid traffic stop that had lasted only 5 to 10 minutes before the police sought consent to search the car.

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Telling the officer that the trunk did not open failed to limit the scope of consent to search the trunk when the driver also said, “you can even look in the trunk”:

His statement that the trunk did not open in no way restricted his initial consent.

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing State v. Phillips, 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Holding: Consent to search is question of constitutional (as opposed to historical) fact, and therefore subject to independent review on appeal. Defendant consented to warrantless search of bedroom: agents went to house to investigate drug transaction;

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding:

“Police may not threaten to obtain a search warrant when there are no grounds for a valid warrant, but `[w]hen the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission, it does not vitiate consent.’” United States v.