On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, 3/24/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

After Van Linn refused to consent to a blood draw, police ordered one to be taken even though they didn’t have a warrant or exigent circumstances. After the circuit court suppressed the results of the test of this illegal blood draw, the state obtained the same evidence using a subpoena for Van Linn’s medical records. The supreme court holds that, under the “indepedent source” doctrine, the evidence obtained with the subpoena should not be suppressed even though the state sought the subpoena after the suppression of the same evidence obtained with the illegal blood draw.

State v. Christopher Antonje Tek, 2021AP1112-Cr, 3/31/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

About 45 seconds into a traffic stop, Officer Rocha placed Tek in handcuffs and continued his investigation of a possible OWI.  Ten minutes later, Rocha took Tek to jail and arrested him. Tek argued that he was arrested–without probable cause–when Rocha cuffed him.  The court of appeals disagreed. It held that Rocha had reasonable suspicion to investigate a possible crime, and his use of handcuffs did not transform Tek’s detention into an arrest.

City of Waukesha v. Brian John Zimmer, 2012AP530-531, 3/23/22, District 2; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court suppressed the results of Zimmer’s preliminary breath test because Officer Moss demanded, rather than asked, Zimmer to submit to a PBT, contrary to §343.303. It also dismissed Zimmer’s OWI citations. The court of appeals reversed because Moss had probable cause arrest even before he administered the PBT and because the circuit allowed its dislike of the PBT to cloud its judgment.

State v. Eric D. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18; case activity (including briefs)

Police went looking for Bourgeois at a hotel because he might have been in possession of stolen handgun, he had PTSD, and he had a drug problem. At 2:00 a.m., despite a “do not disturb” sign, 3 officers tried to enter his room unannounced first using a key card and then a master key. Due to the chain lock, they could only peek through but they saw that Bourgeois alone and unarmed  He declined to let them in and turned away. Claiming exigent circumstances, police busted through the hotel door.

Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy has posted an essay on a recent federal district court decision regarding the legality of so-called “geofence” warrants, which involve law enforcement getting access to Google’s cell phone location data and using the data to advance a criminal investigation. Google apparently imposes its own sort of “warrant” requirement, and the basic questions in the case, United States v. Chatrie, involve whether the request for the data is a Fourth Amendment search at all,

State v. Jennifer A. Jenkins, 2020AP1243-CR, 3/1/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Jenkins, convicted of OWI 2nd, raised some interesting and unusual challenges to the trial court’s order denying her motion to suppress.  (1) The arresting officer’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. (2) He unlawfully stopped her car outside of his jurisdiction. And (3) her blood draw was painful, inordinately long, and therefore unreasonable. The court of appeals rejected all of them.

State v. Christina Marie Wiederin, case activity (including briefs)

Wiederin was a driver in a fatal head-on collision. She was seriously injured in the crash and was trapped inside the car for nearly an hour afterward; she was then taken by ambulance to a hospital in Minnesota, where she would undergo medical imaging followed by surgery. The court of appeals now affirms the trial court’s conclusion that the circumstances of the crash, transportation and treatment presented an exigency such that the sheriff’s sergeant who drew her blood could reasonably conclude seeking a warrant would risk losing evidence, and that the draw was thus valid under Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013).

State v. Jere J. Meddaugh, 2022 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)

Wearing black clothing and riding a bicycle across publicly accessible school grounds in the middle of the night while a Safer at Home order is in effect does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. So says the court of appeals in a decision that is recommended for publication.

State v. Taras O. Haliw, 2021AP1095, District 4, 1/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Haliw argues his license shouldn’t be revoked for refusing a chemical test for alcohol because the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest him for OWI, see § 343.305(9)(a)5.a. The court of appeals rejects his argument.

State v. Randy J. Promer, 2020AP1715-CR, 12/21/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Last term, SCOTUS rejected the idea that “community caretaking” is a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. See Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021). Concurring opinions raised the possibility that the doctrine either no longer exists or applies only to the search of impounded vehicles.  See our post. The court of appeals holds that the community caretaker doctrine continues to apply to traffic stops,  and it justified the search and seizure in this case.