On Point: C. Warrant unnecessary

State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa

Issue: Whether warrantless entry of defendant’s apartment was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine (risk that evidence — drugs — will be destroyed).

Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence may be justified where both probable cause and exigent circumstances are shown. Probable cause is conceded, leaving exigent circumstances — in this instance,

State v. Daniel Rodriguez, 2001 WI App 206, PFR filed 9/19/01
For Rodriguez: Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a residence was justified under the following circumstances: the location was a drug “hot spot”; before entry, undercover officers saw three people enter and quickly leave; drug arrests had been made at the home two months earlier; and, when the undercover officers approached defendant,

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.

Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],

State v. Shane M. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102
For Ferguson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the warrantless, forced police entry of a locked closet was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.

Holding:

¶12 After applying the Anderson test, we are satisfied that the police actions here qualified as ‘community caretaker.’ A search, to qualify as a community caretaker exception,

State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Munroe’s acquiescence, under false pretenses, to police entry of his motel room vitiated any consent for their subsequent search of that room, where Munroe refused their initial request to search.

Holding:

¶11 The officers entered Munroe’s room for, ostensibly, one purpose: to check his identification.

State v. Jennifer K. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 621 N.W.2d 891, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals.
For Matejka: James B. Connell

Issue: “(W)hether, under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, a driver’s consent to a police officer’s search of a vehicle extends to a passenger’s jacket left in the vehicle at the time of the search.”

Holding:

¶35 Here,

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001).For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue1: Whether “the combination of the strong odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, and the knowledge on the part of the occupants that the police are standing outside, amount to exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry and subsequent search”.

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001)
For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

¶25 In Smith, we recognized four circumstances which, when measured against the time needed to obtain a warrant, constitute the exigent circumstances required for a warrantless entry.

State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson

Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.

Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.

State v. Keith Schroeder, 2000 WI App 128, 237 Wis.2d 575, 613 N.W.2d 911
For Schroeder: Kevin D. Musolf

Issue/Holding: Inspection of child pornography on a computer, found during a warrant-authorized search of a computer for unrelated material, was in plain view so as to be subject to seizure without a separate warrant:

13            In order for the plain view doctrine to apply:  “(1) the evidence must be in plain view;