On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

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.

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether the search warrant for Herrmann’s apartment was supported by evidence sufficiently untainted by an illegal entry into his apartment.

Holding: The untainted discovery of nine marijuana plants, prior to the occurrence of the illegal police action, provided probable cause to believe that other contraband would be found in the apartment,

State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01
For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test.

Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established by State v. Bohling,

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 seizure of a disbarred attorney’s client files by a court-ordered trustee amounted to governmental action so as to trigger fourth amendment protections.

Holding:

¶8 Here, Garczynski’s seizure and search of Knight’s client files were conducted pursuant to an order issued by Judge Carlson under the authority conferred on the circuit courts by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Rule 22.271(2).

Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Jones: Colleen D. Ball, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Dueren, Norris & Riesselbach.

Issue/Holding: Procedure for obtaining return of property seized under Uniform Controlled Substances Act is outlined in two seemingly overlapping statutes, §§ 961.55 & 968.20. The former, part of UCSA, mandates that “(a)ny property seized but not forfeited shall be returned to its rightful owner.”

State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski

Holding: Jackson failed his burden of production that the state violated his rights (more concretely: unless the hospital personnel were acting as state’s agents, there would be no governmental interference with his rights under the fourth amendment).

State v. Dennis Moslavac, 230 Wis. 2d 338, 602 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moslavac: Michael S. Holzman.

Issue/Holding: The knock-and-announce rule does not apply when the target premises are unoccupied.

Police have authority to forcibly execute a search warrant when the premises are unoccupied. It follows that the knock-and-announce rule doesn’t apply to unoccupied premises, the purposes of the rule not being served if no one’s there.

State v. Domingo G. Ramirez, 228 Wis.2d 561, 598 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ramirez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: When the state searches mail prior to delivery to a residence, and the addressee is not a resident, that person has a (“minimal”) burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy in the package. This requirement occupies a middle ground, between a presumptive expectation of privacy and a requirement that the “challenger”