On Point: A. Expectation of privacy

United States v. Lonnie Whitaker, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 14-3290 & 14-3506, 4/12/16

Taking a drug-sniffing dog into the locked, second-floor hallway of an apartment building where there were at least six to eight apartments without first obtaining a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment under Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013), and Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).

Michael J. Belleau v. Edward F. Wall, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-3225, 1/29/16

The Seventh Circuit holds that Wis. Stat. § 301.48, which requires certain sex offenders to wear a GPS monitoring device, does not violate either the Fourth Amendment or the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. This decision reverses a Wisconsin federal district judge’s decision striking down the statute.

State v. Brett W. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, 1/15/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Residents of multi-family dwellings, beware! According to the dissent, this decision “creates a great inequity” between those who live in houses and those who don’t (e.g. SPD clients). The majority holds that a locked, parking garage beneath an apartment building is not curtilage protected by the 4th Amendment, and an apartment dweller has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the private parking space for which he pays rent. Attorney Anthony Cotton, counsel for Dumstrey, offers his thoughts on the decision.

Michael Belleau v. Edward Wall, Case No. 12-CV-1198 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 21, 2015); reversed (1/29/16).

“The question presented in this case is whether … a person who has already served his sentence for his crimes and is no longer under any form of court ordered supervision can be forced by the State to wear such a device and to pay the State for the cost of monitoring him for the rest of his life.” (Slip op. at 11). A federal district judge answers “no” to that question, and holds that requiring Belleau to comply with § 301.48 by wearing a GPS tracking device for the rest of his life after he had finished his criminal sentence and was discharged from his ch. 980 commitment violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws and the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Ryan H. Tentoni, 2015 WI App 77; case activity (including briefs)

Tentoni does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages delivered to another person’s phone and therefore can’t seek to suppress the text messages and other subsequently obtained phone records as fruit of the government’s illegal search of the phone.

United States v. Bodie B. Witzlib, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1115, 8/7/15

The search of the basement of the home Witzlib was living in with his grandmother was valid because the area was shared and not Witzlib’s private space. Nor was the consent affected by the fact that after Witzlib answered the officers’ knock on the front door they asked him to come out of the house onto the driveway and, after he refused consent to search, they went back to ask for his grandmother’s consent to search.

Oconto County v. Joseph R. Arndt, 2014AP2955, District 3, 7/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Arndt was not arrested within the curtilage of his home under the test established by United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

State v. Rachael A. Dickenson, 2015AP277-CR, District 2, 7/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police didn’t enter the curtilage of Dickenson’s home or commit a trespass by walking up her driveway toward the back of her house.

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 “

Grady v. North Carolina, USSC No. 14-593, 2015 WL 1400850, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing State v. Grady, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014) (unpublished order); docket

The Supreme Court holds that a state conducts a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attaches a device like a GPS bracelet to a person’s body without consent for the purpose of tracking the person’s movements.