On Point: a. Scope

State v. Derik J. Wantland, 2014 WI 58, 7/11/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

A four-justice majority of the supreme court holds that a police officer lawfully searched a briefcase found in a vehicle during a traffic stop because the driver consented to a search of the car and the passenger did not unequivocally withdraw the consent given by the driver. Three dissenting judges take a very different view, concluding that under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer should have realized that Wantland was withdrawing consent to a search of the briefcase.

State v. Royce Markel Wheeler, 2013 WI App 53; case activity

Police went to a duplex in response to domestic abuse complaint from what they believed was the lower unit, with the caller saying she had been assaulted and was bleeding. (¶¶2, 4-6). After officers spent some 20 minutes knocking on the duplex’s common front door and yelling, a woman named Bates opened the door, saying she lived in the upper unit.

State v. Antoine Lamont Massey, 2012AP1124-CR, District 1, 3/5/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A daughter of the leaseholder had both actual and apparent authority to consent to a search of the apartment, including the back bedroom in which drugs were found, applying, among other cases, State v. Tomlinson, 2002 WI 91, 254 Wis. 2d 502, 648 N.W.2d 367,

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates

Issue/Holding:

¶13      Kelley also argues that the search violated the scope of consent. He contends that an accelerant and phone handset could not have been found under his bed and therefore that place should not have been searched. We disagree. …

¶14      Here, the police were searching for a telephone handset and an accelerant.

State v. Robert A. Ragsdale, 2004 WI App 178, PFR filed 8/5/04
For Ragsdale: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: Whether an occupant’s consent to search his home “as long as he was present” limited an officer’s authority to question the occupant’s three-year-old son apart from his father, and thus inhibit the officer’s recovery of an illicit weapon based on information received from the child.

Holding:

¶10.

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wallace’s consent for a strip search encompassed the more intrusive body cavity search that ensued (Wallace bent over and spread his buttocks).

Holding:

¶29. We have concluded that Wallace voluntarily consented to a strip search, and the parties agree that a visual body cavity search was ultimately conducted.

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.