On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Based on evidence that the dog had been trained in drug detection, the police had probable cause to search the automobile once the dog alerted them, including probable cause to search a purse within the car. ¶¶12-15

But, keep in mind this potentially important limitation,

State v. Dennis L. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/10/02
For Daggett: Julie A. Smith

Issue: Whether a warrantless draw of blood, following OWI arrest, is necessarily unreasonable if performed at the jail rather than hospital.

Holding: There is no bright-line rule that a blood draw must be made in a hospital setting to be constitutionally reasonable. Instead, there is “a spectrum of reasonableness”: blood withdrawn by a medical professional in a medical setting is generally reasonable;

State v. Jay D. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Krawjewski: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding:

¶3. … (A) warrantless nonconsensual blood draw from a person arrested on probable cause for a drunk driving offense is constitutional based on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, even if the person offers to submit to a chemical test other than the blood test chosen by law enforcement,

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. We conclude, however, that we need not address whether police may conduct a consensual strip search free of the statutory restrictions. Absent a constitutional violation, a court may not suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute except where the statute ‘specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction.’ 

State v. Brandon L. Wheat, 2002 WI App 153, PFR 6/14/02
For Wheat: Steven A. Koch, Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding: The record shows that the search of defendant’s residence was performed by his probation agent; police officers were present only for protection; therefore, this was a probation and not a law enforcement search. ¶23.

UPDATE: What about where the search of the probationer/parolee’s home is conducted by the police alone?

State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶6. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the Fourth Amendment applies to canine sniffs in United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). … The Court then concluded “that the particular course of investigation that the agents intended to pursue here-exposure of respondent’s luggage,

State v. Brandon L. Wheat, 2002 WI App 153, PFR 6/14/02
For Wheat: Steven A. Koch, Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding: Because the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply at revocation hearings, “(a) reasonable probation search, as conducted here, is lawful even if the probation officer relies, in part, on information from law enforcement officials in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” ¶29.

State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2001 WI 98, reversing State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208
For Eason: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether evidence obtained after entry of a home in violation of the announcement rule, because authorization was provided by an invalid no-knock warrant, is nonetheless admissible under the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement.

State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant, invalid on its face because unsupported by oath or affirmation, is covered by the good faith exception.

Holding:

¶24. Fourth and finally, the State asks this court to allow admission of the seized evidence under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation must be suppressed.

Holding: The requirement that a search warrant be supported by oath or affirmation is an explicit and long-standing feature of both state and federal constitutions, as well as legislation, and is essential to the warrant’s validity.