On Point blog, page 1 of 2
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).
COA: exigency supported decision to seize cell phone
State v. Jeremy J. Deen, 2020AP1399, 8/24/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police received a tip that an IP address associated with Deen’s home had uploaded child pornography. They went to the home and Deen let them in. While inside, officers noted Deen was carrying a knife, so they frisked him, which turned up a cell phone. In response to officers’ questions about child porn, Deen made some equivocal statements about whether there might be any on the phone, and the officers took it. The court of appeals holds that the possibility that Deen would hide or destroy the phone or delete the images it might contain supplied sufficient exigent circumstances that the police could seize it without a warrant.
Odor of burning weed justified warrantless entry of home
State v. B.W.R., 2020AP1726, District 2, 4/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The odor of marijuana gave police probable cause to believe evidence of a drug crime would be found in B.W.R.’s home and the odor plus the occupants’ awareness the police were knocking gave the police reason to conclude the evidence would be destroyed if they took time to get a warrant.
COA holds exigency justified warrantless blood draw
State v. Yancy Kevin Dieter, 2020 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)
Dieter called 911 at about 6 in the morning and reported that he’d crashed his car after drinking at a bar. The crash happened about four hours before Dieter made the call; he was badly injured and the car’s other occupant was killed.
Challenges to seizure at apartment door and protective sweep of apartment rejected
State v. Jordan Bennett Micklevitz, 2018AP637-CR, District 1, 1/23/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Micklevitz’s challenges to the search of his apartment.
Marijuana odor, fleeing teens gave exigent circumstances to search apartment
State v. Robert Torres, 2017 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)
It’s unclear why this opinion is recommended for publication–it seems to be a pretty straightforward application of the law to a particular fact situation.
Marijuana smell alone not exigency for warrantless home search
State v. Julie C. Phillips, 2015AP927-CR, 6/14/16, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects the state’s attempt to parlay a single fact–a strong smell of unburned marijuana emanating from a house–into exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless search.
Warrantless entry allowed where police pounding on front door sparks shuffling sounds
State v. Andre Bridges, 2013AP350-CR, district 2; 1/27/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
If any doubt remained, rest assured that if police have probable cause to believe there are drugs in your apartment, pound on your door, yell “Milwaukee police” and then hear sounds of movement, they may bust down your door and conduct a “protective sweep.”
Smell of burnt marijuana + silence after police knock on door = exigent circumstances
State v. Jennifer M. Parisi, 2014 WI App 129; case activity
The warrantless entry into Parisi’s apartment was lawful because police had probable cause to believe the apartment contained evidence of a crime and there were exigent circumstances justifying entry without a warrant.
SCOTUS: A warrant is required to search a cell phone seized incident to arrest
Riley v. California, USSC No. 13-132 (together with United States v. Wurie, USSC No. 13-212), 2014 WL 2864483 (June 25, 2014), reversing People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2013) (unpublished) (and affirming United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013)); Scotusblog case page (which includes links to briefs and commentary) and symposium page (additional opinion commentary)
In a sweeping and significant ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court holds that officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting such a search of a cell phone found on a defendant at the time of his or her arrest.
Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life[.]” ... The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant. (Slip op. at 28).