On Point blog, page 27 of 36
Kentucky v. King, USSC No. 09-1272, cert. grant 9/29/10
Decision below (KY supreme court)
Question Presented (from USSC docket post):
Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment.
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, District II, 7/28/10, review granted 10/27/10
certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp.; Reply
Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph
The court of appeals certifies to the supreme court the following question:
Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
Warrantless Entry – Consent – Attenuation of Taint
State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge the taint of the illegal entry.
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶2 The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the officers corroborated three of the four details relayed by an anonymous informant,
Community Caretaker – Warrantless Entry
State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that “two individuals …
Exigency – Answering Incoming Call, Lawfully Seized Cell Phone Image Supported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Answering call on lawfully seized cell phone proper, given existence of “probable cause to believe that the cell phone was a tool used in drug trafficking,” plus exigent circumstances (danger of evidence destruction), ¶¶35-42.
Probable cause, of course, is typically fact-specific and in that sense the court’s discussion (¶¶25-29) is mundane.
Exigency – Browsing through Image Gallery of Lawfully Cell Phone Unsupported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances did not support browsing through image gallery of lawfully seized cell phone: “That data was not in immediate danger of disappearing before Belsha could obtain a warrant,” ¶33.
The court of appeals had merely assumed that such browsing was improper on the facts,
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,