On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

State v. Albert Jackowski, 2001 WI App 187
For Jackowski: Ronald C. Shiroka

Issue: Whether violation of a statutory requirement for issuance of a building inspection warrant (namely, the § 66.0119(2) condition that such a warrant be issued only upon showing that consent to enter was refused) supports suppression of evidence obtained after entry under the warrant.

Holding:

¶17. We accept, however, the State’s alternative argument that refusal of consent is not a constitutional requirement for issuance of an administrative warrant,

State v. Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz, 2000 WI 4, 231 Wis.2d 782, 604 N.W.2d 543, reversing unpublished decision
For Orta: Mark F. Nielsen, Schwartz, Tifte & Nielsen
For Ruiz: Michael P. Reisterer, Jr.
For amici (SPD & WACDL): Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate, & Howard B. Eisenberg

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police rely on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether consent to search, immediately following warrantless entry of the home, sufficiently attentuated any taint from that entry.

Holding: Consent was freely given and therefore sufficiently attenuated from the entry to purge any taint of illegality.

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether the search warrant for Herrmann’s apartment was supported by evidence sufficiently untainted by an illegal entry into his apartment.

Holding: The untainted discovery of nine marijuana plants, prior to the occurrence of the illegal police action, provided probable cause to believe that other contraband would be found in the apartment,

State v. Luis E. Bermudez, 221 Wis. 2d 338, 585 N.W.2d 628 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bermudez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Consent given following illegal entry was, though, voluntary, the fruit of the illegality:

When applying the attenuation theory, the following must be considered: (1) the temporal proximity of the misconduct and the subsequent consent to search, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances,

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Issue/Holding: Entry into defendant’s bedroom was preceded by a concededly illegal entry into defendant’s living area, in basement of house. The court holds that any taint was dissipated by the time consent was given, though “only a few minutes [had] elapsed.”

State v. David J. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, affirming 2005 WI App 195

For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶34      An in-court identification is admissible, therefore, if the court determines that the identification is based on an independent source. … In other words, the in-court identification must rest on an independent recollection of the witness’s initial encounter with the suspect. 

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis.2d 53, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding1:

The primary concern in attenuation cases is whether the evidence objected to was obtained by exploitation of a prior police illegality or instead by means sufficiently attenuated so as to be purged of the taint. Anderson, 165 Wis.2d at 447-48, 477 N.W.2d at 281.