On Point: c. Destruction of evidence

State v. Jeffrey G. Vanden Huevel, 2013AP1107-CR, District 3, 10/8/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

After rolling his car over early one morning Vanden Huevel left the scene of the accident and went back to his cabin. (¶¶1-7). A sheriff’s deputy named Kelley located the cabin and started knocking on a sliding patio door. (¶¶8-9). Kelley could see someone inside and told the person to open the door,

State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, PFR filed 11/25/09
For Phillips: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence, following controlled buy within it, was justified by the threat of destruction of evidence, given that, “after seeing the police outside the residence, Phillips retreated into the residence and shut the door after the police ordered him to stop,” ¶11. State v.

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.

State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed on different ground, 2008 WI 85
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32 In both Hughes and Garrett, the police officers actually detected the presence of drugs within the residence before they entered without a warrant. In Hughes, the officers smelled the “unmistakable odor of marijuana coming from [the defendant’s] apartment.” Hughes,

State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa

Issue: Whether warrantless entry of defendant’s apartment was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine (risk that evidence — drugs — will be destroyed).

Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence may be justified where both probable cause and exigent circumstances are shown. Probable cause is conceded, leaving exigent circumstances — in this instance,

State v. Daniel Rodriguez, 2001 WI App 206, PFR filed 9/19/01
For Rodriguez: Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a residence was justified under the following circumstances: the location was a drug “hot spot”; before entry, undercover officers saw three people enter and quickly leave; drug arrests had been made at the home two months earlier; and, when the undercover officers approached defendant,

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001).For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue1: Whether “the combination of the strong odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, and the knowledge on the part of the occupants that the police are standing outside, amount to exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry and subsequent search”.

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

Issue/Holding: The odor of burning marijuana from within a closed bedroom did not create exigent circumstances for the police, who did have permission to be in the house, to enter the bedroom:

According to Londre, they believed Kiekhefer was in possession of a large amount of marijuana.