On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Robert C. Knight, 2000 WI App 16, 232 Wis.2d 305, 606 N.W.2d 291
For Knight: Scott B. Taylor.

Issue: Whether the seizure of files earmarked for destruction by a disbarred attorney violated the fourth amendment.

Holding: The files, which the disbarred attorney had turned over to a third party for destruction, had been abandoned and therefore no search and seizure occurred within the meaning of the fourth amendment.

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29 There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer’s warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect,

State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:

¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,

State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding1:

¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.

State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Stephen G. Bauer

Holding: Various informants were sufficiently reliable to support probable cause: though they weren’t expressly identified as citizen informants, they wree not suspects but, rather, “were ordinary persons who answered questions and provided information in response to a police investigation of a crime.” ¶15. (Note: though not mentioned by the court,

State v. Antonion Blanco, Nora M. Al-Shammari, 2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis.2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512
For Blanco: Michael P. Jakus

Issue: Whether the police were justified, under “protective sweep” rationale, to search a crawl space in a bathroom ceiling.

Holding: Though narrowly confined to cursory inspection of places where a person might be hiding following an arrest inside of a residence, the protective-sweep doctrine in this case justified search of a crawl space bolted in place by four screws.

State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson

Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.

Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.

State v. John C. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240
For Thorstad: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue: Whether the warrantless blood draw complied with State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993).

Holding: The four-part Bohling test — lawful arrest; reasonable suspicion that draw will show intoxication; method of drawing blood reasonable; no reasonable objection by arrestee to blood draw —

State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Steven G. Bauer

Issue: What is the standard of review for an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint?

Holding: Although review of probable cause to support a complaint is independent, review of probable cause to support an arrest warrant based on a complaint is greatly deferential (same as review of a search warrant).

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether consent to search, immediately following warrantless entry of the home, sufficiently attentuated any taint from that entry.

Holding: Consent was freely given and therefore sufficiently attenuated from the entry to purge any taint of illegality.