On Point blog, page 2 of 5
SCOW: Courts can’t suppress evidence solely to preserve judicial integrity
State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2018 WI 87, 7/6/18, reversing a circuit court order on bypass of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Wisconsin has recognized 2 grounds for applying the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence–to deter police misconduct and to ensure judicial integrity. State v. Hess, 2010 WI 82, ¶¶20, 33, 327 Wis. 2d 524, 785 N.W.2d 568; State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶3, 31 n.10, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. The majority opinion in this case clarifies that a judge’s failure to follow the law when issuing a warrant cannot serve as an independent basis for the exclusionary rule.
Warrantless, forced blood draw was reasonable
State v. Keith A. Wall, 2017AP2367-CR, District 4, 5/17/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wall sought the suppression of the results of the test of his blood, which showed he had a BAC of 0.178 after his arrest for OWI. He argues the blood was seized unlawfully because police didn’t have a warrant and they used excessive force to draw the blood. The court of appeals rejects both claims.
Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies to pre-Rodriquez dog sniff
State v. James R. Stib, 2017AP3-CR, District 2, 11/15/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Stib argues his traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged to conduct a dog sniff under Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). Assuming Stib is correct, suppression of the evidence seized after the dog alerted is inappropriate under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the dog sniff was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-existing precedent, namely, State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748.
SCOW will address State’s request that it overrule State v. Hess’s limit on good-faith exception to exclusionary rule
State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2016AP2455-CR, petition for bypass granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (based on the parties’ court of appeals briefs)
Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply when there is no misconduct by a law enforcement officer in arresting an individual on an active commitment order that is later found to be void ab initio?
Court of appeals clarifies test for prolonging traffic stop to conduct dog sniff
State v. Katherine J. Downer Jossi, 2016AP618-CR, 8/24/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This court of appeals decision acknowledges what On Point predicted here when SCOTUS issued Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). That is, Rodriguez, which held that prolonging a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction, effectively overruled State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶32, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748, which allowed for a reasonable delay based on the totality of the circumstances (a.k.a. the “incremental intrusion” test).
Defense win! Warrant can’t be based on anonymous tip lacking detail; exclusionary rule applies
State v. Paul L. Linde, 2014AP2445-CR, 8/2/16, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A court commissioner issued a warrant to search Linde’s cabin for evidence of drug manufacturing and for drug paraphernalia. It was based in part on a tip by an anonymous informant, a fact that proved decisive in the court of appeals decision to reverse the circuit court’s denial of Linde’s suppression motion.
Warrantless drug dog sniff at apartment door violated Fourth Amendment
United States v. Lonnie Whitaker, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 14-3290 & 14-3506, 4/12/16
Taking a drug-sniffing dog into the locked, second-floor hallway of an apartment building where there were at least six to eight apartments without first obtaining a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment under Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013), and Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
State v. Andy J. Parisi, 2014AP1267-CR, petition for review granted 6/12/15
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 10; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
Was a warrantless blood draw of a person suspected of having ingested heroin justified because, at the time of the search, State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), held that the dissipation of alcohol constituted a per se exigency that allowed a warrantless search, and police could reasonably extend Bohling‘s holding to a search for any drug?
SCOW: Unlawful use of drug dog at suspect’s front door didn’t taint subsequent search warrant
State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).
Deja vu: McNeely-based challenge to blood draw falls to good-faith exception
State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.