On Point blog, page 118 of 142
Warrantless Entry of Residence – Generally
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed on different ground, 2008 WI 85
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: To overcome its presumptive prohibition, warrantless entry of a residence must be supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances (the latter including hot pursuit, threat to safety, risk of destroyed evidence, and likelihood of flight), ¶¶10-13.
Consent – Acquiescence – Generally
State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15
For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16 When the purported legality of a warrantless search is based on the consent of the defendant, that consent must be freely and voluntarily given. State v. Phillips, 218 Wis. 2d 180, 197, 577 N.W.2d 794 (1998) (citations omitted).
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private / Government Search — UPS
State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes
Issue/Holding: Inspection of package by UPS personnel and subsequent disclosure of its contents to police didn’t require a warrant, because of lack of governmental involvement in the initial search.
¶10 A private party’s discovery, and subsequent disclosure to law enforcement, of contraband is not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in dealings with the private party.
Stop – Basis – Automobile: Display of Temporary Plate
State v. Raymond Lord, Jr., 2006 WI 122, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lord: George A. Tauscheck
Issue: Whether the police may stop an automobile solely because it displays a temporary license plate.
Holding:
¶4 … Law enforcement officers cannot stop an automobile to determine whether it is properly registered unless the officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that either the automobile is being driven contrary to the laws governing its operation or that any occupant is subject to seizure in connection with the violation of an applicable law.
Stop – Basis – Already-Parked Car (Dicta)
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
(Apparent Dicta): Though a “close question,” in that “(w)hen a marked squad car pulls up behind a car, activates emergency flashers, and points a spotlight at the car, it certainly presents indicia of police authority,” ¶65, the court is “reluctant to conclude that the positioning of the officer’s car,
Stop – Basis – Test: Failure to Yield to Authority / Hodari D.
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26 Under Hodari D. and Kelsey, an uncomplied-with show of authority cannot constitute a seizure. …
…
¶37 Mendenhall is the appropriate test for situations where the question is whether a person submitted to a police show of authority because,
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Laxative Search”
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether post-arrest administration of a laxative, in order to recover a substance the arrestee had swallowed was an unreasonable intrusion, such that the result was suppressible.
Holding:
¶36 More helpful than border search jurisprudence is Winston v. Lee,
Forfeiture of Weapon, § 968.20(1m)(b) – Actual Physical Possession Not Necessary
State v. John L. Kueny, 2006 WI App 197, PFR filed 10/19/06
For Kueny: James R. Lucius
Issue: Whether “actual physical possession” of weapons is necessary to support forfeiture under § 968.20(1m)(b).
Holding:
¶9 Kueny argues that he effectively did not have possession of the firearms. He reminds us that he had had no contact with the weapons since putting them in storage years before,
Forfeiture of Weapon, § 968.20(1m)(b) – Read-In Crime Suffices
State v. John L. Kueny, 2006 WI App 197, PFR filed 10/19/06
For Kueny: James R. Lucius
Issue: Whether the weapon must have been used in the crime of conviction in order to be subject to forfeiture.
Holding:
¶11 Kueny misreads the plain language and misses a nuance of the statute. Wisconsin Stat. § 968.20(1m)(b) forbids returning weapons to one who “committed” a crime involving their use;
Reasonable Suspicion — Stop – Duration – Routine Traffic Offense – Prolonged to Seek Consent to Search Automobile
State v. Joseph R. Luebeck, 2006 WI App 87, (State’s) PFR filed 5/17/06
For Luebeck: Alex Flynn; Adam B. Stephens; Rebecca Robin Lawnicki
Issue: Whether the traffic stop, valid at inception, was impermissibly extended so as to invalidate consent to search the car.
Holding:
¶14 … (I)n its decision reaffirming the order granting Luebeck’s motion to suppress the evidence, the circuit court stated:
I don’t think any reasonable person would have felt this encounter had concluded and that he was free to leave.