On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication)

Arrest – Probable Cause
Arrest based on probable cause where drug informant identified photo of Laster as person he just bought drugs from.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Vehicle Stop – Rear Plate State Name Obscured
Stop proper where rear plate bracket obscured name of state, even though “America’s Dairyland” visible at bottom of plate;  pretextual nature of stop irrelevant.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Vehicle Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – Anonymous Tip Insufficient
Anonymous tip “from an unknown informant calling from an unknown location” that driver in restaurant parking lot pouring out beer insufficiently reliable to support subsequent stop, where no traffic violations or erratic driving observed.

State v. Leneral Louis Williams, 2010 WI App 39; for Williams: Richard L. Zaffiro; Resp Br.; Reply Br.

Seizure – Some Restraint Necessary

¶16      The Fourth Amendment is not implicated until there has been a seizure. The Court in Terry described a seizure as “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his [or her] freedom to walk away.” Id.

court of appeals decision; for Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Reasonable Suspicion for Detention and “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
Although, “under the collective knowledge doctrine, an investigating officer with knowledge of facts amounting to reasonable suspicion may direct a second officer without such knowledge to stop and detain a suspect,” the state must prove those underlying facts. “Proof is not supplied by the mere testimony of one officer that he relied on the unspecified knowledge of another officer,” ¶¶12-13.

court of appeals decision; for Conaway: Philip J. Brehm; for Griffin: Michael S. Murphy

Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop, Excessive Window Tint, Generally

¶3    The window tint regulation at issue here is easily summarized. Rear window tinting is permitted only if the window allows at least 35% of light to pass through, except that the limitation does not apply to tinting done during the original manufacture of a vehicle. 

court of appeals decision; for Phillips: Michael J. Backes; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances 

¶8        There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.” State v.

Warrantless entry of residence; protective sweep

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: Robert E. Haney

 Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence is supported when the State demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances, ¶7. Exigent circumstances include: (1) hot pursuit of suspect; (2) threat to someone’s safety; (3) risk of evidence destruction; and (4) likelihood suspect will flee, ¶9.

Analysis:  The court goes on to collapse the 2nd and 3rd categories of exigencies,

Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, on reconsideration 2004 WI 149

Issue/Holding:

¶34. When we review a John Doe subpoena, a foundational issue may be constitutional in nature. For example, does the issuance of a subpoena in a John Doe proceeding, the sole purpose of such proceeding being to investigate alleged criminal activity, have the potential to affect Fourth Amendment rights?

State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion

Issue/Holding: Support for warrantless entry of a residence to effectuate an arrest may be found where the offense is jailable, even if a misdemeanor; State v. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152 overruled:

¶27      Our review of the reasoning of Mikkelson, as compared with that of Welsh and Santana,