On Point: C. Warrant unnecessary

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.

Fernandez v. California, USSC 12-7822, 2/25/14, affirming People v. Fernandez, 145 Cal Rptr.3rd 51 (Cal Ct. App. 2012).

Docket here; SCOTUSblog analysis of decision here; Orin Kerr’s “Five Thoughts on Fernandez” here; On Point analysis of cert grant here

Police officers may, without a warrant, search a jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents to the search. 

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State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2012AP1593-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity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

David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132

Question presented:

Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lower court opinion: People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

United States v. Brima Wurie,

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

When the passenger of a car asks a police officer searching the car if he has “got a warrant for that?” before the officer opens a briefcase found in the hatchback of the car, has the driver’s general consent to search the car been limited?

For more factual background about this an interesting and novel issue in Wisconsin,

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. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home and conduct a search. The court concludes the rule governing third-party consent articulated in United States v.

Maryland v. King, USSC No. 12-207, 6/3/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012)

In a decision validating the collection of DNA from at least some persons before they are even convicted of a crime, a divided Supreme Court has concluded that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause for a “serious”

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.