On Point: A. Expectation of privacy

State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming the judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)

We said in our post on the court of appeals’ certification that this case presented novel and important issues about searches of cell phones and their data. So we anticipated a decision addressing the parameters of police searches of digital devices. But the majority doesn’t address those issues or decide whether Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Instead, the majority holds that, regardless of the lawfulness of the search of Burch’s cell phone data, “there was no police misconduct to trigger application of the exclusionary rule.” (¶26). The majority’s approach bodes ill for the future of Fourth Amendment litigation and the freedom the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect—as illustrated by this case, given that a majority of the justices (one concurring, three dissenting) concludes the search of Burch’s phone data violated the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); PfR granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)

Police lawfully entered Wilson’s backyard under the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, certification granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the certification):

Did police violate Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights by:

1. exceeding the scope of Burch’s consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages;
2. unlawfully retaining the entire cell phone download after it completed its initial investigation and closing the case without charging Burch; and
3. unlawfully conducting a second search of the cell phone download months after closing the initial investigation.

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. Barry J. Krull, 2019AP370-CR, 6/2/20, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity, (including briefs)

Deputies noticed Krull speeding and followed him to his co-worker’s residence. Krull drove 30-40 feet into the driveway when the deputies stopped him, noticed the usual signs of intoxication, conducted FSTs and then took him to the hospital for a blood draw. He moved to suppress arguing that the stop was unlawful and his consent to the blood draw wasn’t voluntary. He lost and appealed.

State v. Lois M. Bertrand, 2019AP1240-CR, 2/26/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The 4th Amendment prohibits a warantless entry into the curtilage of a home unless it is supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶19, 372 Wis. 2d 202, 887 N.W.2d 554. In this case, the officer lacked a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances when he seized Bertrand in the garage attached to her house. Thus, the circuit court should have granted the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of her seizure.

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. Adam Blaine Anderson, 2018AP718, 7/23/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A sheriff’s deputy saw Anderson, who had an outstanding warrant, in the yard of an a acquaintance with whom he was staying. Specifically, the sheriff saw him by means of a live surveillance video; they’d installed a camera on a telephone pole across the street as part of an investigation into meth dealing. He alerted other officers, who showed up at the residence and eventually, after a chase, arrested Anderson.

State v. Lonnie P. Ayotte, Jr., 2018AP839-CR, 7/25/19, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Like Jessica Randall, Ayotte consented to a blood draw after his OWI arrest but then asserted his right to privacy in his blood and told authorities they couldn’t test his blood for alcohol without a warrant. As they did with Randall, the authorities tested the blood anyway. And like Randall,

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2019 WI 80, 7/2/19, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

A majority of the supreme court holds that a person who has been arrested for OWI and consented to a blood draw cannot prevent the testing of the blood sample for alcohol or drugs by advising the state she is revoking her consent.