On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

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. 

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,

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.

State v. Dennis E. Bailey, 2009 WI App 140
For Bailey: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: Court upholds frisk of vehicle, following stop for minor equipment violation (excessive window tint) in high crime area, where driver made furtive gesture (kicking motions under front seat) and officer testified that he saw a bag, which he thought contained a gun, protruding from under seat, ¶¶24-50. State v. Gary A.

State v. Paul Anthony Butler, 2009 WI App 52, PFR filed 4/20/09
For Butler: Trisha R. Stewart Martin

Issue/Holding: “Frisk” of car supported by concern driver had gun, in that he was wearing an empty gun holster, ¶16.

State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68
For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan

Issue/Holding: No expectation of privacy protected papers left in courthouse hallway and subsequently seized and photocopied by court personnel:

¶12   Although Russ’s main brief on this appeal asserts that, as testified-to by Carlson, the affidavits were in a folder when Carlson saw them, the circuit court found that when Commissioner Sweet first saw them they “were spread out on a public bench” … .

State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68
For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan

Issue/Holding:

¶11   The first issue turns on whether Russ had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the affidavits that he left on the bench. See Roberts, 196 Wis.  2d at 453, 538 N.W.2d at 828 (“[B]efore a defendant can invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment,

State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, PFR filed 11/25/09
For Phillips: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence, following controlled buy within it, was justified by the threat of destruction of evidence, given that, “after seeing the police outside the residence, Phillips retreated into the residence and shut the door after the police ordered him to stop,” ¶11. State v.

State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09
For Lee: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: Police investigating complaint of drug dealing were entitled to enter apartment and conduct “protective sweep” when they saw, through the open front door, clear evidence of drugs:

¶13      The officers who presented themselves at Lee’s front door were investigating a complaint of drug activity at Lee’s address.

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding:

¶25      Kramer argues that the “totally divorced” language from Cady means that the officer must have ruled out any possibility of criminal activity before the community caretaker function is bona fide. The State, on the other hand,