On Point: 3. Exigent circumstances

State v. Neil A. Morton, 2013AP2366-CR, District 4, 4/17/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is another OWI case holding that a warrantless blood draw that would now be unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely is admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary  rule.

State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2011AP1673-CRNM: Review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2012AP1593-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues presented (composed by On Point)

Whether the draw of the defendant’s blood was performed without a warrant and,

State v. William A. Reese, 2014 WI App 27; case activity

The results of a driver’s blood test should not be suppressed even if they were obtained without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances in violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), because the arresting officer acted in good faith reliance on established Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent at the time the blood draw was conducted.

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,

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely marked a big change for Wisconsin.  Click here for On Point’s analysis of the case.  If you’re yearning for more information on what McNeely means for Wisconsin OWI cases, you might want to watch this half-hour program on Wisconsin Eye.  It features Dane County Judge William Foust, AAG  Tara Jenswold, and Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney talking about how the courts and law enforcement intend to implement the change.  

Missouri v. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, 4/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012)

In a decision that works a major change in Wisconsin law governing nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws in OWI cases, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the evanescent quality of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream does not in and of itself create an exigent circumstance:

The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.

State v. Kenneth F. Johnston, 2012AP2427-CR, District 3, 4/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The search of Johnston’s car was supported by probable cause to believe there were open intoxicants in the car:

¶17      In this case, before [Officer] Wojcik searched the vehicle for open intoxicants, Wojcik smelled the odor of intoxicants emanating from the driver-side door.  Wojcik knew, based on Johnston’s preliminary breath test,

State v. Andrew Alexander Jackson, Jr., 2013 WI App 66; case activity

The circuit court erred in suppressing marijuana found in the trunk of Jackson’s car because there was probable cause to search the trunk based on the discovery of marijuana residue, $1,961 in cash, and a digital scale in the passenger compartment of the car:

¶10      Like in [United States v.] Ross,

State v. Daniel Cervantes, 2011AP1858-CR, District 1, 2/12/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The police lacked probable cause to arrest Cervantes when he opened the door of his apartment (¶¶10-16); there were neither exigent circumstances nor community caretaker grounds for the police to enter Cervantes’s apartment following his arrest to do a protective sweep (¶¶14-23); and his subsequent “consent” to search the apartment was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest and entries (¶¶24-30). 

State v. Robert L. Tatum, Case No. 2011AP2439-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Denial of right to self-representation – competence to represent oneself

The circuit court properly denied Tatum the right to represent himself based on his limited education and understanding of legal procedures, as evidenced by his statements and behavior in court. (¶13). While the circuit court found Tatum competent to proceed under Wis.