On Point: A. Expectation of privacy

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.

Issue/Holding: The Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law excludes from coverage “(a)ny communication from a tracking device,” § 968.27(4)(d); a GPS device is such a “tracking device” and, therefore excluded from WESCL coverage.

State v. Dwan J. Earl, 2009 WI App 99
For Earl: Mark D. Richards, Christy Marie Hall

Issue/Holding: Earl did not satisfy the “initial minimal burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy” in a package addressed to a fictitious recipient at a vacant residence; moreover, when Earl picked up the package from the driver he gave his own name and thus “disassociated” himself from the addressee.

State v. Dwan J. Earl, 2009 WI App 99
For Earl: Mark D. Richards, Christy Marie Hall

Issue/Holding:

¶9        Sealed packages sent through the mail are entitled to full protection under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114 (1984). In order to challenge a warrantless search or seizure, one must show a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing or place searched or seized. 

State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68
For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan

Issue/Holding: No expectation of privacy protected papers left in courthouse hallway and subsequently seized and photocopied by court personnel:

¶12   Although Russ’s main brief on this appeal asserts that, as testified-to by Carlson, the affidavits were in a folder when Carlson saw them, the circuit court found that when Commissioner Sweet first saw them they “were spread out on a public bench” … .

State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68
For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan

Issue/Holding:

¶11   The first issue turns on whether Russ had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the affidavits that he left on the bench. See Roberts, 196 Wis.  2d at 453, 538 N.W.2d at 828 (“[B]efore a defendant can invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment,

State v. Timothy L. Neitzel, 2008 WI App 143
For Neitzel: David A. Nelson

Issue/Holding: Under the particular circumstances, the sole occupant of a locked, public restroom had no reasonable expectation of privacy given that he occupied the room for at least 25 minutes and then failed to respond to pounding on the door.

The court follows the 6-factor test adopted by State v.

State v. Sean R. Fox, 2008 WI App 136
For Fox: Daniel M. Berkos

Issue/Holding: Permissive guest who had not stayed overnight lacked expectation of privacy in a mobile home:

¶21      The facts of this case contrast with those of Trecroci and more closely resemble those of Carter. Fox’s relationship to his hosts, Terry and McCoy,

State v. Brian Harold Duchow,  2008 WI 57, reversing  unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding

¶21 This second component reflects that protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, as described in the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution [15] as well as Article I, § 11 of the state constitution, [16] must be determined by reference to the “‘scope of privacy that a free people legitimately may expect.’” 

State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53
For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Bruski did not establish an expectation of privacy in the automobile from which evidence was seized, where his only connection to the automobile was that he had passed out in it; further, he did not know how he’d gotten to his current location and didn’t know where the car key was.

State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53
For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23 Whether an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area subjected to a search depends on two prongs. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979); Dixon, 177 Wis.