On Point: 2. Plain view

State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.

State v. Kahreem Rashah Wilkins, Sr., 2023AP1385-CR, 10/8/24, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting Kahreem Wilkins’ motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle.  The majority found that Wilkins was not seized when police approached the vehicle and saw a firearm in plain view, while the dissent concluded a reasonable person surrounded in his vehicle by four officers would not feel free to leave.

State v. Eric D. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18; case activity (including briefs)

Police went looking for Bourgeois at a hotel because he might have been in possession of stolen handgun, he had PTSD, and he had a drug problem. At 2:00 a.m., despite a “do not disturb” sign, 3 officers tried to enter his room unannounced first using a key card and then a master key. Due to the chain lock, they could only peek through but they saw that Bourgeois alone and unarmed  He declined to let them in and turned away. Claiming exigent circumstances, police busted through the hotel door.

State v. Adam Blaine Anderson, 2018AP718, 7/23/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A sheriff’s deputy saw Anderson, who had an outstanding warrant, in the yard of an a acquaintance with whom he was staying. Specifically, the sheriff saw him by means of a live surveillance video; they’d installed a camera on a telephone pole across the street as part of an investigation into meth dealing. He alerted other officers, who showed up at the residence and eventually, after a chase, arrested Anderson.

State v. Mario Martinez Redmond, 2015AP657-2015AP658-CR, 5/17/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Redmond was charged and convicted of battery, disorderly conduct, and multiple counts of witness intimidation. His appeal raised various ineffective assistance of counsel and other claims. But the most interesting issue concerns Redmond’s failed motion to suppress a cryptic text message sent from his phone.

State v. Charles Ray Stewart, 2014AP276-CR, District 1, 12/22/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The warrantless search for and seizure of evidence from Stewart’s apartment was lawful because, after Stewart allowed police to enter the apartment and was arrested, the community caretaker doctrine allowed police to remain in the apartment to assure Stewart’s dog was cared for, and the office could seize evidence discovered in plain view.

State v. Kendra E. Manlick, 2014AP2138-CR, 2014AP2626-CR, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Manlick was charged with possession of a controlled substance and bail-jumping after an officer, who knew of her drug record, stopped the car she was driving based on an outstanding warrant for the car’s owner, observed unsterile hypodermic needles in it, and then conducted a search yielding additional incriminating evidence.  Manlick’s suppression and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on appeal.

State v. Zoltan M. Peter, 2014AP1589-CR, 1/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs and docket

Peter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. He moved to suppress the marijuana that the police seized from his car, arguably in violation of the plainharm view doctrine and lost. The court of appeals found the argument baffling.

State v. Royce Markel Wheeler, 2013 WI App 53; case activity

Police went to a duplex in response to domestic abuse complaint from what they believed was the lower unit, with the caller saying she had been assaulted and was bleeding. (¶¶2, 4-6). After officers spent some 20 minutes knocking on the duplex’s common front door and yelling, a woman named Bates opened the door, saying she lived in the upper unit.

State v. Damon Keith Sutton, 2012 WI App 7 (recommended for publication); for Sutton: Maayan Silver; case activity

Reasonable Suspicion – “Frisk,” of Vehicle

Reasonable suspicion supported “protective search” of Sutton’s van following routine traffic stop: While the officer ran a document check, Sutton remained in the van. The officer discerned “distinct rocking motions,” which the officer’s training and experience informed her represented “someone who may be trying to retrieve or conceal a weapon.”