On Point blog, page 126 of 143

Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right –Violation of Statute, § 175.40(6)

State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta

Issue/Holding: Any violation of § 175.40(6), which regulates the arrest power of an officer operating outside territorial jurisdiction would not support suppression as a remedy:

¶30. Assuming arguendo that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department had not adopted the written policies required by Wis. Stat. § 175.40(6)(d), we agree with the State that suppression is not a remedy for such a statutory transgression.

Read full article >

OWI – PBT – Probable Cause to Administer

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Authority to administer a preliminary breath test requires probable cause to believe a drunk driving law has been violated. ¶23. Probable cause existed here, given the driver’s (mild) odor of intoxicants; the “suspicious circumstance” of the collision (i.e., with a child on an unobstructed street, and the driver allegedly watching for children);

Read full article >

Suppression Hearing – PBT Result – Expert Not Necessary

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Expert testimony is not a prerequisite for admission of a PBT result at a suppression hearing. ¶29.

 

Read full article >

Warrants — Probable Cause — Child Pornography

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause to believe that the defendant currently possessed child pornography.

Holding:

¶17. “[E]very probable cause determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of the circumstances.” State v.

Read full article >

Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement – Photographs

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement by authorizing seizure of the following: “[p]hotographs, movies, slides, videotape, negatives, and/or undeveloped film which would tend to identify … any other juvenile”; and “[m]agazines, books, movies, and photographs depicting nudity and/or sexual activities of juveniles or adults,

Read full article >

Expectation of Privacy — Public Rest Room Stall

State v. Juan M. Orta, 2003 WI App 93
For Orta: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2 … (A)n individual who occupies a public restroom stall does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she occupies it with another individual, leaves the door slightly ajar and unlatched, and evinces no indication that the stall is being used for its intended purpose.

Read full article >

Expectation of Privacy — Threshold of Residence

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

Issue/Holding: A police officer’s stepping into the threshold of an apartment, preventing the occupant from closing the door, amounted to an “entry,” thereby triggering the fourth amendment warrant requirement. ¶¶10-11, following State v. Johnson, 177 Wis. 2d 224, 227, 501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1993); and noting that “(t)he police practice of putting a foot in the doorway appears to be a common and widespread practice,

Read full article >

Forfeiture — “Adjudication” of Underlying Crime, § 973.076(2)

State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03
For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn

Issue/Holding: Right to seek adjournment of a forfeiture action until after “adjudication” of the underlying criminal proceeding, § 973.076(2), terminates upon trial-level disposition:

¶18. While the term “adjudication” is not itself specifically defined in the statutes, its meaning can be ascertained from an examination of the definitions of other related terms.

Read full article >

Forfeiture – Personal Jurisdiction: Service, § 801.10(4)(a)

State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03
For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn

Issue/Holding: Although a party must “show strict compliance with the requirements of” § 801.10(4)(a) when service is challenged, it is not necessary to “submit an affidavit in which the process server specifically states that he or she served the defendant with ‘authenticated’ copies or did so to the best of his or her knowledge.”

Read full article >

Reasonable Suspicion — Stop — Duration — Prolonged to Administer Field Sobriety Tests

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Continued detention, in order to administer field sobriety tests, was supported by reasonable suspicion, given the defendant-driver’s mild odor of alcohol as well as ambiguity surrounding the cause of the fatal accident. “Thus, one reasonable possibility was that Colstad struck the child with his pickup truck because his judgment and driving skills were impaired by alcohol.”

Read full article >