On Point blog, page 11 of 13
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Non-Constitutional Right: Patient Records (HIPAA, § 146.82)
State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14
For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay
Issue: Whether suppression is a remedy for violation of health care privacy laws (HIPAA; § 146.82).
Holding1:
¶10 Straehler’s argument does not carry for a number of reasons. First, Straehler ignores the fact that HIPAA is limited in its scope and applicability. Investigating authorities, i.e., police officers, are not among the “covered entities” expressly subject to HIPPA.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Documents Themselves
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.
Holding:
¶30 The State concedes, and properly so, that contrary to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 no showing of probable cause was made to the circuit court before the circuit court issued the subpoenas.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Statements Made When Confronted with Improperly Subpoenaed Documents
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.
Holding:
¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.
Warrants – Good Faith
State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
Issue/Holding:
¶26 The trial court here did not find a nexus in the affidavit between the items sought and the house to be searched. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded, in deference to the judge who signed the warrant, that “[t]here’s the good faith exception here. If I were confronted with this affidavit, I think I would have issued the warrant.”
¶27 … “Good faith” is not a doctrine that absolves the neutral and detached judge or magistrate from a careful,
Attenuation of Taint — Statements — After Illegal Arrest
State v. Cesar Farias-Mendoza, 2006 WI App 134
For Farias-Mendoza: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The “causal chain” between the defendant’s illegal arrest and his statement wasn’t attenuated where: he gave the statement within 25 minutes of the circumstance establishing the arrest, ¶¶28-29; there were no intervening circumstances, ¶¶30-31; and, there were suggestions of purposeful misconduct, ¶¶32-34.
Warrants – Good-faith Exception – “Indicia” of Probable Cause, Generally
State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald
Issue/Holding: The good-faith exception is inapplicable when indicia of probable cause are so lacking as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable. This inquiry is distinct from the question of whether the supporting facts are clearly insufficient.
¶33 Under Leon‘s rationale,
Warrants – Good-faith Exception – Sufficient Indicia of Probable Cause
State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald
Issue/Holding: The search warrant was supported by sufficient “indicia of probable cause” to trigger the good-faith exception, including the following: Marquardt had not been seen for two days following his mother’s homicide, raising suspicion about his absence; the victim was covered in a blanket,
Warrants – Good-faith Exception – “Significant Investigation” Requirement of Eason
State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald
Issue/Holding: The “significant investigation” requirement of State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98 is satisfied:
¶52 Investigator Price estimated that over the course of March 13 and 14, a total of 20 law enforcement officers had become involved in the investigation of the homicide.
Attenuation of Taint – Arrest in Home, Payton Violation
State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: “(E)vidence acquired outside of the home after an in-home arrest in violation of Payton is not a product of the illegal governmental activity, if officers had probable cause to arrest developed apart from the illegal entry,” ¶23;
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – SCR (Attorney Ethical Rules)
State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 74
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman
Issue/Holding:
¶11. The trial court held that there had been no violation of SCR 20:4.2 and that even if there had been, suppression would not be the remedy. We agree with the trial court that suppression is not available for an ethics violation.