On Point: C. Warrant unnecessary

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point):

Did the community caretaker rule authorize police to conduct a “protective sweep” of a home even though the person who needed assistance had already been identified and transported to a hospital for treatment?

State v. Kendra E. Manlick, 2014AP2138-CR, 2014AP2626-CR, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Manlick was charged with possession of a controlled substance and bail-jumping after an officer, who knew of her drug record, stopped the car she was driving based on an outstanding warrant for the car’s owner, observed unsterile hypodermic needles in it, and then conducted a search yielding additional incriminating evidence.  Manlick’s suppression and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on appeal.

State v. Zoltan M. Peter, 2014AP1589-CR, 1/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs and docket

Peter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. He moved to suppress the marijuana that the police seized from his car, arguably in violation of the plainharm view doctrine and lost. The court of appeals found the argument baffling.

State v. David M. Wagner, 2014AP842-CR, District 2, 2/25/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wagner voluntarily consented to a search of his person, and was not merely “[a]cquiesc[ing] to an unlawful assertion of police authority,” State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, 16, 299 Wis. 2d 675, 729 N.W.2d 182, when he agreed to the search on the heels of the officer’s assertion of authority to search Wagner’s car.

State v. Frederick C. Thomas, III, 2014AP816-818, 2/19/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs

Thomas was convicted of OWI, operating a car with a prohibited alcohol concentration, unsafe lane deviation, and failure to signal a turn. He challenged the stop, the extension of the stop to conduct field sobriety tests, and the administration of the preliminary breath test.  The circuit court denied suppression, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Darrell G. Lewis, 2014AP2289-CR, 2/12/14; District 4 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for briefs

After arresting Lewis for OWI, police searched his car and found marijuana. Lewis moved to suppress based on Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which permits a warrantless search of a car and containers within  incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime might be found there. Lewis lost his motion and appeal.

State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.

State v. Tyler M. Pasch, 2014AP1193-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Another day, another decision holding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to blood drawn without a warrant or exigent circumstances because the blood draw happened before Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), effectively overruled State v. Bohling,

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.”

State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2014 WI 131, 12/26/14, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, 12/26/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, 12/26/14, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

In these three cases, the supreme court addresses two issues arising from Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013): If a blood draw was conducted before McNeely in reliance on State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule mean the test results should not be suppressed? And, if the dissipation of alcohol by itself doesn’t constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw, what circumstances do establish such an exigency? Foster and Kennedy hold that the good-faith exception applies to pre-McNeely searches. Tullberg addresses the second question.