On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

Question Presented:

Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful?

United States v. Larry Bentley, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-2995, 7/28/15

A drug dog’s alert on Bentley’s car during a traffic stop was sufficient to establish probable cause to search in light of the standard established by Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013).

State v. Patrick Hogan, 2015 WI 76, 7/10/2015, affirming a court of appeals per curiam decision, 2013AP430-CR, majority opinion by Prosser; concurrence by Ziegler, dissent by Bradley (joined by Abrahamson); case activity (including briefs)

Sixteen seconds. It takes longer than that just to find your keys, get into your car, buckle up and start your engine. Keep that in mind as you read on. SCOW found that a traffic stop (due to a seatbelt violation) was unconstitutionally extended to perform field sobriety tests, but then upheld the subsequent vehicle search based on consent given 16 seconds after law enforcement told Hogan he was “free to leave.” SCOW saw no need to perform an attenuation analysis.

The 4th Amendment has been described by Conservative HQ as “one of the most important arrows in the quiver against bullying big government.” Because the government doesn’t just search and seize paper–it also goes after your cell phones, your Facebook account, your email (even when stored on Google’s server), your tweets, your DNA (by definition, your family’s DNA) etc.–we want a sturdy Fourth Amendment, right? Justice Scalia thinks so. He’s been called the 4th Amendment’s “

Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; affirmed 2016 WI 10; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was a warrantless blood draw of a person suspected of having ingested heroin justified because, at the time of the search, State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), held that the dissipation of alcohol constituted a per se exigency that allowed a warrantless search, and police could reasonably extend Bohling‘s holding to a search for any drug?

State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).

State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.

State v. Tyler M. Pasch, 2014AP1193-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Another day, another decision holding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to blood drawn without a warrant or exigent circumstances because the blood draw happened before Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), effectively overruled State v. Bohling,

State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2014 WI 131, 12/26/14, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, 12/26/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, 12/26/14, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

In these three cases, the supreme court addresses two issues arising from Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013): If a blood draw was conducted before McNeely in reliance on State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule mean the test results should not be suppressed? And, if the dissipation of alcohol by itself doesn’t constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw, what circumstances do establish such an exigency? Foster and Kennedy hold that the good-faith exception applies to pre-McNeely searches. Tullberg addresses the second question.

State v. Jeremiah R. Popp & Christopher A. Thomas, 2014 WI App 100; case activity: Popp; Thomas

The search warrant for the home shared by Popp and Thomas was invalid because the primary basis for the warrant was derived from observations made by police when they trespassed on the defendants’ property and peered into their windows.