On Point: 3. Exigent circumstances

State v. Michael J. Kryzaniak/Sherry L. Kryzaniak, 2001 WI App 44
For Kryzaniak: Raymond G. Meyer II

Issue: Whether warrantless entry of a residence to arrest a third party was justified by the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit.

Holding:

¶18 … (T)here was no immediate or continuous pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime; thus, there was no hot pursuit and no exigent circumstances.… There was no pursuit here,

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. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.

Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert.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State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert.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.

Issue/Holding:

¶25 In Smith, we recognized four circumstances which, when measured against the time needed to obtain a warrant, constitute the exigent circumstances required for a warrantless entry.

State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson

Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.

Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29 There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer’s warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect,

State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:

¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,

State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding1:

¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.