On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie

Issue/Holding: Although warrantless automobile searches aren’t presumptively unreasonable, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable in the absence of probable cause to search the automobile. ¶18.

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances weren’t present to justify police entry of a residence to arrest a suspected drunk driver, Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) controlling. ¶¶17-22.

State v. Cara A. Erickson, 2003 WI App 43, PFR filed

Issue: Whether a warrantless draw of blood satisfies State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 533- 34, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993) where there is probable cause but not an actual arrest.

Holding:

¶12. .. (I)n the absence of an arrest, probable cause to believe blood currently contains evidence of a drunk-driving-related violation or crime satisfies the first prong of Bohling.

State v. Joseph Steffes, 2003 WI App 55, PFR filed 3/13/03
For Steffes: Daniel P. Ryan

Issue/Holding: Violation of administrative code provision does not support suppression. ¶¶9, 25.

But: this decision was based largely on State ex rel. Peckham v. Krenke, 229 Wis. 2d 778, 601 N.W.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1999), a case that was essentially overruled by State v.

John Doe and Jane Doe v. Heck, 327 F. 3d 492 (7th Cir. 01-3648, 4/16/03)

Issue/Holding: “(T)o the extent § 48.981(3)(c)1 authorizes government officials to conduct an investigation of child abuse on private property without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances, the statute is unconstitutional.”

Also see Michael C. v. Gresbach, 7th Cir No. 07-1756, 5/19/08: “Today we reiterate Heck’s definitive holding,

State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie

Issue/Holding: Existence of, and compliance with, a police policy on conducting an inventory search relates only to the reasonableness of the search and not the seizure of the item searched:

¶11. Here, the State contends that the search of the vehicle was a valid inventory search. “Although an inventory search is a ‘search’

State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding: Evidence not suppressible merely because seized by officer effectuating stop outside of his or her jurisdiction: there is no “reason to ignore the well-established rule that suppression is required only when evidence is obtained in violation of a constitutional right or in violation of a statute providing suppression as a remedy,”

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶43. This court has explained on at least one prior occasion that both the experience and special knowledge of police officers who are applying for search warrants are among the facts that the warrant-issuing court may consider. 

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: Multaler seeks suppression of pornographic images found by the police while executing a search warrant for evidence of serial homicides committed more than 20 years earlier – in other words, that the information was too stale to support probable cause.

State v. Bradley J. Vorburger, 2002 WI 105, reversing 2001 WI App 43
For Vorburger: David D. Cook

Issue1: Whether the detention of suspect Becker in a motel hallway, while the police sought and then executed a search warrant for a room, was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an arrest (unsupported by probable cause), where Becker was detained over an hour,