On Point blog, page 100 of 141
Search Warrant – GPS Tracking Device
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, affirming 2009 WI App 81; for Sveum: Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus (ACLU); Resp. to Amicus
A circuit court “order” authorizing law enforcement to place and monitor a GPS tracking device on Sveum’s vehicle satisfied 4th amendment Warrant Clause (all warrants must be validly issued) and Reasonableness Clause (warrants must be reasonably executed) requirements.
Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant
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;
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84
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.
Warrantless Entry – Consent – Attenuation of Taint
State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge the taint of the illegal entry.
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶2 The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the officers corroborated three of the four details relayed by an anonymous informant,
Community Caretaker – Warrantless Entry
State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that “two individuals …
State v. Joshua M. Franzen, 2010AP129-CR, District II, 7/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Franzen: Timothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Suppression Hearing – Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing
Suppression hearing isn’t required on motion which challenged probable cause to administer PBT but failed to specify the relief sought.
¶6 WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.30 deals with the required form of motions and pleadings in criminal matters,
Traffic Stop – OWI
State v. Brittany A. Meye, No. 2010AP336-CR, District II, 7/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Meye: Kevin G. Keane; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶6 Meye argues that the odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. We agree. We will not cite, chapter and verse, all the many cases in this state where either we or our supreme court found facts sufficient for an investigatory stop.
Search-Incident: Automobile; Sufficiency of Evidence: Manufacturing THC
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search-Incident – Automobile
By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order:
¶9 Here,
Reasonable Suspicion – Terry Stop
City of Chippewa Falls v. Kenneth C. Hein, No. 09AP2729, District III, 6/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Hein: Paul D. Polacek; BiC; (Resp. not on-line); Reply
Stop of Hein’s vehicle was supported by “reports of suspicious activity about 2:30 a.m., the nature of which was unknown:”
¶10 … A prudent officer proceeding into such ambiguity and uncertainty will ensure the availability of witnesses or suspects and freeze the scene in order to further investigate:
[A] law enforcement officer will be confronted with many situations in which it seems necessary to acquire some further information from or about a person whose name he does not know,