On Point blog, page 12 of 14
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.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right –Violation of Statute, § 175.40(6)
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta
Issue/Holding: Any violation of § 175.40(6), which regulates the arrest power of an officer operating outside territorial jurisdiction would not support suppression as a remedy:
¶30. Assuming arguendo that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department had not adopted the written policies required by Wis. Stat. § 175.40(6)(d), we agree with the State that suppression is not a remedy for such a statutory transgression.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — violation of nonconstitutional right prison discipline
State v. Joseph Steffes, 2003 WI App 55, PFR filed 3/13/03
For Steffes: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding: Violation of administrative code provision does not support suppression. ¶¶9, 25.
But: this decision was based largely on State ex rel. Peckham v. Krenke, 229 Wis. 2d 778, 601 N.W.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1999), a case that was essentially overruled by State v.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – Investigative Stop Outside Officer’s Jurisdiction
State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler
Issue/Holding: Evidence not suppressible merely because seized by officer effectuating stop outside of his or her jurisdiction: there is no “reason to ignore the well-established rule that suppression is required only when evidence is obtained in violation of a constitutional right or in violation of a statute providing suppression as a remedy,”
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception – Reliance on Judicial Decision
State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray
Issue: Whether evidence illegally obtained through warrantless use of a thermal imaging device, in reliance on then-valid Wisconsin appellate court decision subsequently invalidated by a Supreme Court decision, must be suppressed.
Holding: Warrantless use of a thermal imaging device against Loranger must now clearly be regarded as a fourth amendment violation.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right – § 968.255 (Strip Searches)
State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶25. We conclude, however, that we need not address whether police may conduct a consensual strip search free of the statutory restrictions. Absent a constitutional violation, a court may not suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute except where the statute ‘specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction.’