On Point blog, page 12 of 13
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.’
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Dog Sniff
State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶6. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the Fourth Amendment applies to canine sniffs in United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). … The Court then concluded “that the particular course of investigation that the agents intended to pursue here-exposure of respondent’s luggage,
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception
State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2001 WI 98, reversing State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208
For Eason: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether evidence obtained after entry of a home in violation of the announcement rule, because authorization was provided by an invalid no-knock warrant, is nonetheless admissible under the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement.
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception – Violation of “Oath or Affirmation” Requirement
State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall
Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant, invalid on its face because unsupported by oath or affirmation, is covered by the good faith exception.
Holding:
¶24. Fourth and finally, the State asks this court to allow admission of the seized evidence under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception – Remand for Determination
State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether evidence seized under a warrant defective because unsupported by probable cause may be admissible under the good-faith doctrine.
Holding: Given that, subsequent to trial-level litigation, the supreme court recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98,
Attenuation of Taint — Abandonment of Property — Thrown to Ground during Illegal Patdown
State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich
Issue: Whether a person voluntarily abandons property when throwing it to the ground during an illegal pat-down.
Holding:
¶24. Our own research has uncovered cases that are fatal to the district attorney’s contention. In Lawrence v. Henderson, 478 F. 2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1973), the court held that drug evidence found in a police car after an unlawful arrest could not have been voluntarily abandoned because the ‘abandonment’