On Point: H. Exclusionary rule

State v. Ricky O. Halverson, 2011AP240-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Halverson: Walter R. Andrew; case activity

Officer, whose investigation of single-car crash led him to Halverson’s home, wasn’t properly engaged in community caretaker exercise when he took Halverson into custody, supposedly for his own good, ¶¶8-14. Community caretaker test, State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14,

State v. Steven A. Avery, 2011 WI App 124 (recommended for publication); for Avery: Martha K. Askins, Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Search Warrant – Execution – Reasonableness 

Warrant-based search of Avery’s property was a reasonable continuation of the original search 3 days earlier.

General statement:

¶18      Generally, searches are subject to the “one warrant, one search” rule.  

Docket

Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143

Questions Presented (from Petition):

This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v.

Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11

… The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

State v. Andrew R. Reierson, 2010AP596-CR, District 4, 4/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Reierson: John Smerlinski; case activity

The officer’s erroneous reading of Reierson’s license plate, causing the officer to wrongly believe that his registration had expired, nonetheless supported stop of the car under the good-faith rule.

¶11      We conclude the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress because the officer had probable cause to stop Reierson for operating with an expired registration,

State v. Kathleen A. Ultsch, 2011 WI App 17(recommended for publication); for Ultsch: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Ultsch BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Warrantless entry into a home, supposedly to check on the well-being of a suspected drunk driver just involved in an accident, wasn’t justified under the community caretaker doctrine; State v.

Dismissed as improvidently granted, 3/29/11

Docket

Decision below (New York Court of Appeals)

Question Presented (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)

Whether someone’s driving record is suppressible as the fruit of an illegal stop or arrest.

Scotusblog

A mere 6 days ago, Mr. Badger raised an alert on the core of this issue:

United States v.

Docket

Decision below (CTA11)

Question Presented (from cert petition):

Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

Cert petition

Scotusblog page

Fall-out from the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 

State v. Michael R. Hess, 2010 WI 82  affirming 2009 WI App 105; for Hess: George M. Tauscheck; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant

¶2   We conclude that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a situation in which: (1) no facts existed that would justify an arrest without a warrant;

Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2008 WI App 131; for Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch,SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Search-Incident – Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedent

¶2   Dearborn maintains, and the State concedes, that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.