On Point: C. Warrant unnecessary

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.

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,

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,

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.”)

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,

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: The number of officers present does not, by itself, conclusively demonstrate coercion, but is a factor to consider among others. Thus, consent was validly given following a valid traffic stop that had lasted only 5 to 10 minutes before the police sought consent to search the car.

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Telling the officer that the trunk did not open failed to limit the scope of consent to search the trunk when the driver also said, “you can even look in the trunk”:

His statement that the trunk did not open in no way restricted his initial consent.

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Though the officer had never touched cocaine before, his discovery of a white, flour-like susbtance in clear plastic bags under the seat supported probable cause. And, because he therefore had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime, he was entitled to search every part of it,

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing State v. Phillips, 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Holding: Consent to search is question of constitutional (as opposed to historical) fact, and therefore subject to independent review on appeal. Defendant consented to warrantless search of bedroom: agents went to house to investigate drug transaction;

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding: The odor of burning marijuana from within a closed bedroom did not create exigent circumstances for the police, who did have permission to be in the house, to enter the bedroom:

According to Londre, they believed Kiekhefer was in possession of a large amount of marijuana.