On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, District 3 (10/20/20), review granted 11/18/20, circuit court judgment affirmed, 2021 WI 68; case activity (including briefs)

Burch … contends the [Green Bay Police Department] and the [Brown County Sheriff’s Office] violated his Fourth Amendment rights in three ways: (1) the GBPD exceeded the scope of his consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages; (2) the GBPD unlawfully retained the entire cell phone download after it completed its June 2016 investigation into the vehicle incidents; and (3) the BCSO had no lawful authority to conduct a second search of the cell phone download in August 2016. Because these issues raise novel questions regarding the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to the vast array of digital information contained in modern cell phones, we certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

State  v. Catherine Cuskey Large, 2019AP1966-CR, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals correctly affirmed the circuit court’s decision to suppress OWI evidence in this case, where an officer admitted that the New Glarus Police Department’s “protocol” was to administer PBTs on motorists whether they had probable cause for OWI or not. But court of appeals did so by taking a heavy-handed approach to waiver, a rule of administration that appellate courts have the discretion to apply or not.

State v. Dawn M. Prado, 2020 WI App 42, cross petitions for review granted, 10/21/20, affirmed, 2021 WI 64; case activity (including briefs)

They must have gotten tired of waiting. After SCOW failed (or refused) to decide the question in Howes, Brar, Mitchell, and Hawley, and SCOTUS likewise punted in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, the court of appeals now does what those higher courts could or would not: it rules on the constitutionality of Wis. Stat. § 343.305‘s provisions that permit police to withdraw blood from an incapacitated or unconscious motorist on the theory that they’ve “consented” to this by driving. And, like the vast majority of jurisdictions to consider similar questions, our court holds this provision unconstitutional, rejecting the state’s argument that statutorily-imputed consent is the type of “consent” that provides an exception to the warrant requirement. But the court also says the statute was not, at the time of Prado’s arrest, so plainly unconstitutional that the officer could not rely on it in good faith. Thus the court declines to suppress the test results.

State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective.

State v. Michael R. McGinnis, 2018AP1388-CR, District 3, 10/8/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer investigating a hit-and-run at the Happy Hollow Tavern unlawfully pushed his way into McGinnis’s home and then arrested him. The state concedes the officer’s entry was unlawful, so the evidence and statements police obtained while in McGinnis’s home must be suppressed. But the arrest of McGinnis was supported by probable cause, so the evidence obtained after the arrest is admissible.

State v. Garrett German, 2018AP78, 9/24/19, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Facebook alerted law enforcement that German’s account had uploaded images that “appeared to depict child pornography.” Eventually, an who had looked at the images submitted a warrant application averring that each one did “appear to be an image of child pornography.” Police executing the warrant did, in fact, find child pornography. Was the bare allegation that the images were child pornography (rather than an attachment with the actual images or at least a description of what they showed) good enough to supply probable cause to the warrant-issuing magistrate?

State v. Justin W. Paull, 2017AP1210, 8/15/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mr. Paull was found bloody and semi-conscious after a motorcycle accident. He smelled of intoxicants and had slurred speech. Police arrested him, and he was taken to the hospital. An officer read the informing the accused form to the now-unconscious Mr. Paull, then drew his blood.

State v. Michael J. Scott, et al., 2019 WI App 22; case activity (including briefs)

Applying long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court of appeals holds that the exclusionary rule can be used to defend against a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the state. But it also holds the state should have a shot at arguing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule also applies, despite the state’s failure to assert this claim in the circuit court.

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. 

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.