On Point: C. Warrant unnecessary

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Dudley A. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply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.

court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply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.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); BiC; Resp Br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,

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. 

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.

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.

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,

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding:

¶37      We conclude that Wagner had an objectively reasonable basis for deciding that a motorist may have been in need of assistance when he stopped behind Kramer’s vehicle. Kramer was parked on the side of a highway after dark with his hazard flashers operating.

State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, PFR filed 11/25/09
For Phillips: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence, following controlled buy within it, was justified by the threat of destruction of evidence, given that, “after seeing the police outside the residence, Phillips retreated into the residence and shut the door after the police ordered him to stop,” ¶11. State v.

State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09
For Lee: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: Police investigating complaint of drug dealing were entitled to enter apartment and conduct “protective sweep” when they saw, through the open front door, clear evidence of drugs:

¶13      The officers who presented themselves at Lee’s front door were investigating a complaint of drug activity at Lee’s address.