On Point: 3. Exigent circumstances

State v. Donnie Gene Richards, 2020 WI App 48; case activity (including briefs)

Richards was found lapsing in and out of consciousness and severely injured behind the wheel of a crashed vehicle. There was evidence he was intoxicated, and he would soon be transported to a distant hospital by helicopter. Believing there wasn’t enough time to get a warrant by this time, the officer on scene requested that Richards’s blood be drawn before the flight, and it was.

State v. David M. Hay, 2020 WI App 35; case activity (including briefs)

Hay was pulled over in the early morning and blew a .032 on the PBT. He had several drunk-driving priors, so it would be illegal for him to drive with a BAC over .02. The officer never sought a warrant; instead he searched the car (though another officer on-scene could have done that), waited for another officer to show up to “sit” with the vehicle until a tow truck came, then headed to the hospital with Hay. Only then–about an hour after the initial stop–did the officer ask Hay whether he’d agree to a blood test. When Hay refused, the officer, in consultation with an ADA, decided the situation was exigent. The thinking was that given the low PBT result, further passage of time might reduce Hay’s BAC to .00 thus and make a blood test useless as evidence. So, the officer ordered a warrantless blood draw. Because there was only one phlebotomist in the hospital, that draw didn’t actually happen until 35 minutes had passed. Hay had no alcohol in his blood, but there was cocaine, so he was charged with the “restricted controlled substance” variety of OWI. He moved for suppression, the circuit court granted it, and the state appealed.

State v. Dawn J. Levanduski, 2020 WI App 53; case activity (including briefs)

This published decision resolves an issue arguably left open by Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016).  The court of appeals holds that when an officer reads Wisconsin’s “Informing the Accused” form to an OWI suspect, and she refuses a blood draw, her refusal can be used against her at her OWI trial.

State v. Dawn M. Prado, 2020 WI App 42, cross petitions for review granted, 10/21/20, affirmed, 2021 WI 64; case activity (including briefs)

They must have gotten tired of waiting. After SCOW failed (or refused) to decide the question in Howes, Brar, Mitchell, and Hawley, and SCOTUS likewise punted in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the court of appeals now does what those higher courts could or would not: it rules on the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 343.305‘s provisions that permit police to withdraw blood from an incapacitated or unconscious motorist on the theory that they’ve “consented” to this by driving. And, like the vast majority of jurisdictions to consider similar questions, our court holds this provision unconstitutional, rejecting the state’s argument that statutorily-imputed consent is the type of “consent” that provides an exception to the warrant requirement. But the court also says the statute was not, at the time of Prado’s arrest, so plainly unconstitutional that the officer could not rely on it in good faith. Thus the court declines to suppress the test results.

State v. Shannon G. Potocnik, 2019AP523, 4/14/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

There’s a deep split nationwide about whether the community caretaker doctrine can ever permit entry into a home. Wisconsin has held that it can, and this pro se appeal is of course necessarily fact-bound. But the decision is thorough and provides a good summary of state community-caretaker law as it stands, along with a much briefer discussion of blood draws based on exigency.

State v. Lois M. Bertrand, 2019AP1240-CR, 2/26/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The 4th Amendment prohibits a warantless entry into the curtilage of a home unless it is supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶19, 372 Wis. 2d 202, 887 N.W.2d 554. In this case, the officer lacked a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances when he seized Bertrand in the garage attached to her house. Thus, the circuit court should have granted the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of her seizure.

State v. Jeffrey L. Ionescu, 2019 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

A homeowner told police that he found a burglar in his car and saw him run west across his yard. About 10 minutes later, officer and a trained tracking dog headed in that direction for about 30 minutes. The officer saw footprints, and the dog detected scent, off and on along the way. Eventually they reached the yard of burglar’s mother and entered it without a warrant. She let them enter her home where they found Ionescu. Was this pursuit cold, warm or hot?

Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210, 6/29/19, vacating and remanding State v. Mitchell, 2018 WI 84, Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

This is the decision we’ve all been waiting for on whether a blood draw from an unconscious OWI suspect requires a warrant. Wouldn’t you know–the opinion is splintered. Alito, writing for 4 justices (a plurality, not a majority), concludes that when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood draw with out a warrant. The plurality vacates the judgment and remands the case for a hearing so that Mitchell has a chance to show that there were no exigent circumstances in his case. Way to go, Andy Hinkel, for fending off the State’s contention that implied consent is actual consent.

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.

State v. Faith N. Reed, 2018 WI 109, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1609; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s something not seen in a while: our state supreme court suppressing evidence because the police violated the Fourth Amendment.