On Point blog, page 27 of 35
David Hanson v. Dane Co., Wis., 7th Cir. No. 09-1759, 6/15/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision
Warrantless Entry – Emergency Doctrine – 911 Call
According to David, the police violated the fourth amendment by entering without probable cause and refusing to leave as soon as Karen asked them to go. Like the district judge, we think that a 911 call provides probable cause for entry, if a call back goes unanswered. The 911 line is supposed to be used for emergencies only.
State v. Dale W. Jenkins, 2009AP2918-CR, District II, 5/19/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Jenkins: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing
Jenkins’ motion papers were inadequate and the circuit court would have been correct in denying him an evidentiary hearing. All Jenkins filed was a one-page motion with the assertion the officers had looked inside his windows;
Third-Party Consent: Seize and Search Computer
State v. David D. Ramage, 2010 WI App 77; for Ramage: Jevin J. Mulrooney; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Co-tenant’s permissive use of Ramage’s computers conferred on her authority to consent to warrantless police removal of computer and search of their contents. Contrary authority, People v. Blair, 748 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001); State v. Lacey,
State v. Tommy K. Miller, 2009AP2056-CR, District II, 4/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Dudley A. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Community Caretaker
Miller caught the attention of the police by driving very slowly, early in the morning, and pulling into the parking lot of a closed business. But he soon drove off, and neither committed any traffic violations nor engaged in suspicious behavior; his ensuing stop wasn’t supportable under a community caretaker rationale:
¶16 We conclude that Harper’s conduct was not a bona fide community caretaker activity because it did not meet the standard.
State v. Daniel J. Rice, 2009AP1162, District IV, 4/1/2010
court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing
¶6 Regarding the applicability of [State v.] Garner [, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996) to the present case, we find no published cases applying Garner’s modified Nelson test to a pretrial motion to suppress anything other than witness identification evidence.
State v. Michael John O’Connell, 2009AP2289-CR, Dist I, 2/9/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); BiC; Resp Br
Search & Seizure – Warrantless Entry
O’Connell had reasonable expectation of privacy in stairwell leading to his apartment; warrantless entry to stairwell, to investigate OWI complaint against O’Connell, “was not justified by exigent circumstances because at the time of the entry, the officers had no basis to believe the underlying offense was a jailable offense.” The court implies that,
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
supreme court decision; court of appeals decision; for Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Frisk – Demand that Suspect Drop Object
Frisk analysis applies to police demand that suspect drop object in hand, ¶22.
¶23 Here, Carroll led officers on a high-speed chase in a car that the officers had been observing in connection with an armed robbery investigation, and exited his car quickly while holding an unknown object.
State v. Sameeh J. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5, reconsideration denied
court of appeals decision; for Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Reasonable Suspicion for Detention and “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
Although, “under the collective knowledge doctrine, an investigating officer with knowledge of facts amounting to reasonable suspicion may direct a second officer without such knowledge to stop and detain a suspect,” the state must prove those underlying facts. “Proof is not supplied by the mere testimony of one officer that he relied on the unspecified knowledge of another officer,” ¶¶12-13.
State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179
court of appeals decision; for Phillips: Michael J. Backes; case activity
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
¶8 There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.” State v.
Warrantless Entry of Residence – Exigency – Effectuate Misdemeanor Arrest
State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
Issue/Holding: Support for warrantless entry of a residence to effectuate an arrest may be found where the offense is jailable, even if a misdemeanor; State v. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152 overruled:
¶27 Our review of the reasoning of Mikkelson, as compared with that of Welsh and Santana,