On Point blog, page 1 of 15
COA holds that warrantless entry to home, authorized by young child, did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
State v. Peter J. Long, 2024AP1249-CR, 5/28/25, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity
While Long’s appeal presents some superficially interesting legal issues, ultimately COA’s dereference to the circuit court’s underlying factual findings govern the outcome here.
Police had probable cause to search car, so didn’t unlawfully extend stop to wait for drug dog
State v. Warner E. Solomon, 2022AP634-CR, District 2, 5/24/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Solomon’s argument that the police unlawfully extended a traffic stop to wait for a drug dog to arrive to do a thorough search of his car.
Defense Win! COA upholds suppression of evidence obtained from defendant’s Dropbox account
State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)
In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).
Defense win! Unanimous SCOW rejects claim that police incursion into fenced backyard was “knock and talk”
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2022 WI 77, 11/23/22, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, 2020AP1014; case activity (including briefs)
Someone called the police to report that a vehicle was driving erratically “all over the road.” The caller said the car had stopped in the alley behind a particular house and described its driver getting out, climbing up on the fence to reach over an unlatch a gate, and going into the backyard.
Search of socks and shoes for weapon was fine; so was subsequent search of car
State v. James Timothy Genous, 2019AP435-CR, 11/1/22, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In 2020 the court of appeals held that police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to stop Genous to investigate whether he was selling drugs. The supreme court reversed and sent the case back to the court of appeals to address the lawfulness of the searches of Genous’s shoes and socks and his car. Over a dissent, the court of appeals holds they were.
Warrantless arrest on porch unlawful, but probable cause to arrest means no suppression
State v. Kallie M. Gajewski, 2020AP7-CR, District 3, 8/2/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police arrested Gajewski in the curtilage of her home without a warrant and exigent circumstances. While this makes the arrest unlawful, the evidence obtained from the arrest is not subject to suppression because police had probable cause to arrest her.
Court of Appeals addresses exigency test in Mitchell v. Wisconsin on remand
State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2022 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S.Ct. 2525 (2019), held that when police have probable cause to believe a driver has committed a drunk driving offense and the driver is unconscious or stupefied to a point that requires hospitalization and precludes a breath test, police will be justified in getting a blood test without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception unless the driver can show that; (1) his or her blood wouldn’t have been drawn if police weren’t seeking blood alcohol information; and (2) police didn’t reasonably conclude they had no time to seek a warrant given their other pressing needs or duties. See also State v. Richards, 2020 WI App 48, 393 Wis. 2d 772, 948 N.W.2d 359. Applying that test to Mitchell himself on remand, the court of appeals holds Mitchell hasn’t made the first showing and therefore the warrantless blood draw of him was reasonable.
Defense win! Warrantless entry into hotel room violated the 4th Amendment
State v. Eric D. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18; case activity (including briefs)
Police went looking for Bourgeois at a hotel because he might have been in possession of stolen handgun, he had PTSD, and he had a drug problem. At 2:00 a.m., despite a “do not disturb” sign, 3 officers tried to enter his room unannounced first using a key card and then a master key. Due to the chain lock, they could only peek through but they saw that Bourgeois alone and unarmed He declined to let them in and turned away. Claiming exigent circumstances, police busted through the hotel door.
COA holds blood draw supported by exigency
State v. Christina Marie Wiederin, case activity (including briefs)
Wiederin was a driver in a fatal head-on collision. She was seriously injured in the crash and was trapped inside the car for nearly an hour afterward; she was then taken by ambulance to a hospital in Minnesota, where she would undergo medical imaging followed by surgery. The court of appeals now affirms the trial court’s conclusion that the circumstances of the crash, transportation and treatment presented an exigency such that the sheriff’s sergeant who drew her blood could reasonably conclude seeking a warrant would risk losing evidence, and that the draw was thus valid under Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013).
COA finds exigent circumstances based on screaming and a slap
State v. Jesse Rogalla, 2019AP1486-CR, 10/26/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
Officer Klieforth was dispatched to a home after someone reported that Rogalla was yelling at a woman inside. Klieforth heard both parties screaming, peeked in a window, saw Rogalla yelling as a woman knelt before him crying “You don’t have to do this” and “Why?” After hearing a loud slap, Klieforth entered without a warrant based on fear for the woman’s safety.