On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

State v. Michael R. Meton, 2025AP141-CR, 8/27/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Meton challenges the judgment convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, 2nd offense. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood result after police administered a preliminary breath test without first asking for his consent. COA agrees with the circuit court that suppression of the blood draw because police had independent grounds apart from the PBT to arrest Meton on suspicion of operating while intoxicated.

State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw.  The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial were conclusory and undeveloped.

State v. Danny Thomas McClain, Jr., 2024AP8, 4/8/25 District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying suppression of the evidence (field sobriety tests and preliminary breathalyzer tests), finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for additional criminal activity.

State v. Holly J. Grimslid, 2024AP954, 1/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA holds that, even if officer’s actions denying the defendant’s request to use the bathroom while he waited to obtain warrant for a blood draw were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, suppressing evidence of the blood draw is not a viable remedy.

State v. Carter Nelson, 2024AP617-CR, 11/6/24, District II (one judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting Carter Nelson’s motion to suppress cocaine seized from his vehicle without a warrant and without probable cause.  The Court held that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in a standard inventory search when Nelson’s vehicle was towed.

Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16. 

State v. Ashley Jean Campbell, 2020AP1813, 3/5/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

As a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that regardless of whether the “instinct exception” exists, “the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle.” Op., ¶5.  More specifically, the court concludes that the canine “did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door.” As a result, the court reverses Campbell’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions to grant her motion to suppress.

State v. Ashley Jean Campbell, 2020AP1813, 1/23/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

As a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that regardless of whether the “instinct exception” exists, “the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle.” Op., ¶5.  More specifically, the court concludes that the canine “did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door.” As a result, the court reverses Campbell’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions to grant her motion to suppress.

State v. Jason William Castillo, 2023AP398, 10/26/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Castillo refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and subsequently challenged the revocation of his driver’s license. In doing so, however, Castillo claims only that he was unlawfully seized prior to his refusal and that the unlawful seizure should result in the suppression of the evidence. The court of appeals and the state agree that Castillo was unlawfully seized, but Castillo’s suppression claim fails because “there was no form of misconduct by the deputy and exclusion would not “appreciably deter” any form of police misconduct.” (Op., ¶3).

State v. Gregory L. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

A person called police and said they’d seen a particular vehicle back into a parked car at idle speed and then drive off. About 40 minutes later, an officer arrived at Cundy’s house, knowing that the suspect vehicle was registered to Cundy and finding it in the driveway. The officer knocked on the front door and eventually spoke with Cundy, who remained inside the threshold. At some point the officer declined to let Cundy end the conversation, and a bit later he ordered Cundy out, drove him in his squad to the accident scene, and had the witness identify him. The officer then returned Cundy to his home, where after some further discussion, he was arrested.