On Point blog, page 133 of 142
Community Caretaker — Juvenile in High-crime Area
State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],
Exigency — Community Caretaker — Underage Drinking
State v. Shane M. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102
For Ferguson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the warrantless, forced police entry of a locked closet was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding:
¶12 After applying the Anderson test, we are satisfied that the police actions here qualified as ‘community caretaker.’ A search, to qualify as a community caretaker exception,
Arrest — Probable Cause — Collective Knowledge Doctrine, Applied to Informant
State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach
Issue: Whether McAttee’s arrest was supported by probable cause.
Holding:
¶11. First, Detective Kuchenreuther was entitled to rely on Officer Smith’s knowledge of the confidential informant. See State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, ¶17 n.4, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210 (arresting officer may rely on collective knowledge of police force conveyed to the officer prior to arrest),
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Probable Cause to Arrest Exists, but Officer Exercises Discretion Not to Arrest
State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich
Issue: Whether seizure of evidence may be sustained on a search-incident-to-arrest rationale, where the officer had probable cause to arrest, but was not going to arrest.
Holding:
¶11. What happens, however, when the police officer does not intend to make an arrest? Here, it is clear there was no intent on the part of the police officer to search Hart incident to the inevitable formal arrest for OWI.
Arrest — Traffic Offense — Safety Glass Law
State v. Michael M. Longcore II, 2001 WI App 15, on appeal after remand of State v. Longcore I, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether replacing a vehicle’s glass window with a plastic sheet violates the safety glass statute, § 347.43(1), so as to provide probable cause to arrest.
Attenuation of Taint — Abandonment of Property — Thrown to Ground during Illegal Patdown
State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich
Issue: Whether a person voluntarily abandons property when throwing it to the ground during an illegal pat-down.
Holding:
¶24. Our own research has uncovered cases that are fatal to the district attorney’s contention. In Lawrence v. Henderson, 478 F. 2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1973), the court held that drug evidence found in a police car after an unlawful arrest could not have been voluntarily abandoned because the ‘abandonment’
Attenuation of Taint — Consent
State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether consent to search was valid notwithstanding illegal police activity.
Holding:
¶13. The three factors that help to determine whether the taint of earlier illegal police activity has been attenuated by the time a consent to search is granted are: “(1) the temporal proximity of the official misconduct and seizure of evidence;
Consent — Acquiescence — Request Itself Unlawful Assertion of Authority
State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether Munroe’s acquiescence, under false pretenses, to police entry of his motel room vitiated any consent for their subsequent search of that room, where Munroe refused their initial request to search.
Holding:
¶11 The officers entered Munroe’s room for, ostensibly, one purpose: to check his identification.
Consent — Authority — Driver’s Consent to Search Passenger’s Property
State v. Jennifer K. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 621 N.W.2d 891, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals.
For Matejka: James B. Connell
Issue: “(W)hether, under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, a driver’s consent to a police officer’s search of a vehicle extends to a passenger’s jacket left in the vehicle at the time of the search.”
Holding:
¶35 Here,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right — Unauthorized Practice of Law
State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64, reversing 2001 WI App 145, 246 Wis. 2d 533, 629 N.W.2d 31
For Noble: Thomas H. Boyd
Issue/Holding: Suppression of evidence is required only where it has been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or of a statute specifically providing for suppression as a remedy. ¶14.
Issue: Whether, assuming that a detective’s examining defendant at a John Doe proceeding amounted to violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute,