On Point blog, page 107 of 141
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Stalking
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.
Issue/Holding: A search warrant for seizure of the sorts of items Sveum used or kept in connection with a 1996 stalking conviction established probable cause he was keeping such items in 2003:
¶35 The warrant affidavit stated that the affiant was a detective with twenty-two years of experience who had specialized training in stalking crimes.
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Statements of Unnamed, Unwitting Participant in Transaction
State v. Jaime Romero, 2009 WI 32, reversing unpublished opinion
For Romero: Thomas E. Hayes
Issue/Holding: Search warrant affidavit, based in part on incriminatory statements of “unwitting” informant (“Mr. X”), established probable cause:
¶29 In the instant case a confidential informant told a law enforcement officer what someone else had told him. In such a case, the veracity of each person in the chain is relevant.
Search Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶40 Sveum’s particularity argument is that the many items authorized for seizure were so “non-specific” that the warrant was an invalid general warrant. Police were authorized to seize phone bills, journals, calendars, logs, computers and devices related to computers,
WESCL, §§ 968.31(2)(b) and (c) – GPS Device not Covered
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.
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – One-Party Consent Exception, Generally
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09
For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8 The one-party consent exception reads as follows:
(2) It is not unlawful …:….
(b) For a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – One-Party Consent Exception – Law Enforcement Officer as Consenting Party
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09
For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, for purposes of authorizing one-party consent under WESCL, “a person acting under color of law” may be a law enforcement officer.
Holding:
¶2 [H]e contends that Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b), commonly referred to as the one-party consent exception,
Expectation of Privacy – Mail – Fictitous Addressee
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.
Expectation of Privacy – Mail, Generally
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.
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Routine Traffic Stop
State v. Melvin Bridges, 2009 WI 66, PFR filed 5/18/09
For Bridges: Michael S. Holzman
Issue/Holding: Frisk of Bridges during routine traffic stop (defective brake lights) upheld, where the early-evening stop was in an area “where the police had received numerous complaints of gunshots fired at night,” and Bridges when pulled over had made “a questionable movement”; State v. Gary A. Johnson,
Reasonable Suspicion – Basis – Traffic Stops – Administrative Code Equipment Violation (Excessive Tint) – Stop Effectuated by Local Police
State v. Dennis E. Bailey, 2009 WI App 140
For Bailey: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue/Holding1: The police have authority to stop a vehicle for an equipment violation of an administrative code provision incorporated under local ordinance:
¶17 Wisconsin Stat. § 349.02(2)(a) and (b) expressly allow a police officer to stop a vehicle for violation of a statute or ordinance enacted under this chapter.