On Point blog, page 34 of 35
Exigency — Automobile Exception to Warrant Requirement
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.
Warrants – Scope of Authorized Search – Plain View – Computer Files
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;
Warrants – Scope of Authorized Search
State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a search of documents exceeded the scope of a warrant authorizing a search for currency, among other things.
Holding: Because the warrant authorized a search for currency, the officers were allowed to look through documents where bills could have been hidden,
Exigency – Hot Pursuit – Reported Burglary in Progress
State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶29 There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer’s warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect,
Exigency — Emergency Doctrine — Warrantless Entry to Check on Welfare of Child
State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:
¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,
Exigency — Community Caretaker Entry of Residence, Suicide Prevention — “Protective Sweep”
State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber
Issue/Holding1:
¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.
Exigency — Blood Alcohol
State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01
For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg
Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test.
Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established by State v. Bohling,
Reasonable Suspicion to Stop – Basis – Privileged Information – Public Safety Exception to Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege
State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.
Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”
Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,
Consent — Acquiescence
State v. Michael Wilson, 229 Wis.2d 256, 600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wilson: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Holding: Consent to search was mere acquiescence and therefore involuntary. (“Depriving a defendant of necessities is an indicia that consent is involuntary.”)
Consent — Preliminary Breath Test
County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis.2d 293, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999), reversing Jefferson Co. v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d 424, 588 N.W.2d 267 (Ct. App. 1988)
For Renz: Stephen E. Mays.
Issue: Whether an officer is required to have probable cause to arrest before asking a suspect to submit to a preliminary breath test.
Holding: The “overall scheme” allows an officer to use a PBT to determine whether to arrest a suspect,