On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: The police had probable cause to arrest Kutz for involvement in his wife’s disappearance where: there was reason to believe that she had suffered serious harm given that she hadn’t returned to her mother’s house as expected, her family had unsuccessfully looked for her, and it was unlike her not to notify her family of a change in plans,

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

Issue/Holding:

¶16. To determine if probable cause exists, the court must consider whether “the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable police officer to believe … that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.” 

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds (for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590)
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue1: Whether the search of Knapp’s bedroom was properly consented to by his brother (George),

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,”