On Point blog, page 112 of 143
Search Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement: Violated Where Target’s Address Must Be Verified
State v. Michael Anthony King, 2008 WI App 129
For King: Mark S. Rosen
Issue/Holding: A search warrant that conditions its execution on verification of the target’s address violates the 4th amendment’s particularity requirement:
¶25 … The Fourth Amendment clearly sets forth the particularity requirement that must be satisfied prior to issuance of a warrant. … The particularity requirement is necessary “to direct the officer to the exact place to be searched and to guard against abuses that prevailed under the old writs of assistance which left the place to be searched to the discretion of the searching officer.” Rainey v.
Search Warrants – Particularity Requirement – Multi-Unit Building (Duplex)
State v. Adrian J. Jackson, 2008 WI App 109
For Jackson: Craig S. Powell; Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding: A warrant describing the building to be searched only as “a two-story duplex residence” did not satisfy the particularity requirement:
¶9 If the location to be searched is not described with sufficient particularity to inform officers which unit in a multi-unit building they are to search, the particularity required by the Fourth Amendment has not been satisfied.
Warrants – Scope – Business Records
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether execution of a search warrant for business records exceeded the warrant’s scope in that the warrant: authorized only the search for and seizure of records that related to a specific business with specifically named clients; and also authorized only a search of that business’s office space and not the defendant’s personal office within that space.
Search Warrants – Staleness – Drug Transaction, 30 Days Old
State v. Michael Anthony King, 2008 WI App 129
For King: Mark S. Rosen
Issue/Holding: Search warrant based on drug transaction occurring 30 days earlier lacked probable cause, ¶32 n. 7:
… From our review of the record, it would appear that probable cause as to the search of his residence was stale. The most recent information directly tied to King was thirty days old.
Search Warrants – “Technical Irregularity,” § 968.22 – Accurate Identification of Target in Warrant Application but Inaccurate Description in Warrant Itself
State v. Eric Dwayne Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, PFR filed 12/12/08
For Rogers: Mark D. Richards
Issue/Holding: Incorrect identification of automobile on face of warrant was mere technical irregularity based on “scrivener’s error”:
¶15 In this case, the executing officer had personal knowledge and the officer attached and incorporated a correct affidavit. The affidavit correctly identified Rogers’ car three times, describing the correct color,
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – Construction, Generally – Relevance of Federal Decisions
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶15 Extrinsic sources include legislative history. Id. The drafting records of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law state that the law “represents Wisconsin implementation of the electronic surveillance portion of [Title III],” the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) — “Oral Communications” — No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by School Bus Driver in Statements Recorded While Transporting Student
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether a school bus driver’s statements surreptitiously recorded by a voice-activated tape recorder in the student’s backpack were suppressible under WESCL.
Holding:
¶2 The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Duchow’s tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis.
Expectation of Privacy — Public Rest Room
State v. Timothy L. Neitzel, 2008 WI App 143
For Neitzel: David A. Nelson
Issue/Holding: Under the particular circumstances, the sole occupant of a locked, public restroom had no reasonable expectation of privacy given that he occupied the room for at least 25 minutes and then failed to respond to pounding on the door.
The court follows the 6-factor test adopted by State v.
Plain View – Cell Phone, Image on Display Screen
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Displayed image on cell phone satisfied plain view doctrine (lawful position of officer, inadvertent discovery, probable cause to be images displayed contraband), ¶¶23-25.
Frisk – Generally – Type of Crime; Admitted Possession of Weapons; Reaching into Pockets
State v. Aaron E. Applewhite, 2008 WI App 138, PFR filed 9/19/08
For Applewhite: Pamela Moorshead
Issue/Holding: Reasonable suspicion supported the frisk, given: the type of crime being investigated (residential burglary); the suspect’s admitted possession of, but initial reluctance to produce, two knives; and, his repeated reaching into his pants pockets, ¶¶3-11.