On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Todd DiMiceli, 2020AP1302-CR, District 4, 9/16/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Under § 968.375(6), a court-ordered subpoena for electronic communication records must be served within 5 days of issuance. The subpoena used to obtain internet records regarding DiMiceli from Charter Communications wasn’t served till 9 days after issuance. The records obtained led to further investigation and charges that DiMiceli was in possession of child pornography. (¶¶2-7). The delay in service of the subpoena doesn’t entitle DiMiceli to suppression of the evidence obtained with the subpoena because the violation of the 5-day service rule was a technical irregularity or error that did not affect DiMiceli’s substantial rights.

State v. Joel R. Davis, 2021 WI App 65; case activity (including briefs)

A police officer stopped Davis’s car in the early evening. He initially said it was because Davis lacked a passenger-side mirror. But it turns out that’s not illegal. Wis. Stat. § 347.40. So the next day–and despite having failed to mention it to the other officers at the stop, which was video recorded–he “updated” his report to say that actually, he’d stopped Davis for a seatbelt violation. But the body-cam video shows that Davis’s seatbelt was fastened when the officer initially approached the car.

State v. John William Lane, 2021AP327, 8/19/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Lane departing a bar around 2:10 in the morning. He followed him in his squad car and eventually pulled him over, and eventually arrested him for OWI. The tailing and the stop were recorded on the squad car’s camera. The circuit court concluded the officer’s observations didn’t create reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the court of appeals now affirms.

State v. Caleb James Watson, 2021AP355-CR, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Taking Watson to a local police station to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) wasn’t unreasonable and thus didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Derek V. Schroth, 2021AP733, District 2, 8/25/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schroth challenges the probable cause to arrest him for OWI and the finding that he refused a blood draw. There were ample facts for probable cause. (¶¶3-8, 13-15). And though the arresting officer couldn’t recall whether Schroth said “no” or “something else” when asked to submit to a blood draw,

State v. Jeremy J. Deen, 2020AP1399, 8/24/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police received a tip that an IP address associated with Deen’s home had uploaded child pornography. They went to the home and Deen let them in. While inside, officers noted Deen was carrying a knife, so they frisked him, which turned up a cell phone. In response to officers’ questions about child porn, Deen made some equivocal statements about whether there might be any on the phone, and the officers took it. The court of appeals holds that the possibility that Deen would hide or destroy the phone or delete the images it might contain supplied sufficient exigent circumstances that the police could seize it without a warrant.

Portage County v. Sean Michael Dugan, 2021AP454 & 2021AP455, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Dugan was stopped in a snowstorm. The officer had him do field sobriety tests at the scene of the stop, in a rut in the snow crated by the squad’s tires. (¶¶3-4). Having Dugan do the FSTs in the snow didn’t make his detention unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Isaac D. Taylor, 2019AP797-CR, District 2, 7/30/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The majority sees specific and articulable facts providing reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The dissent sees a change in the state’s justification for the stop that sandbags the defense and turns the court of appeals into a fact finder.

State v. Keith J. Dresser, 2020AP2017, 7/22/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A sheriff’s deputy saw Dresser apparently unconscious in his vehicle in a Taco Bell parking lot at 5:00 a.m. The deputy pulled behind Dresser’s vehicle, turned on his emergency lights apparently based on departmental “procedures,” and knocked on the window. Dresser woke up, he and/or the deputy opened a car door, and ultimately Dresser was arrested for OWI.

State v. Anthony Francen Harris, 2019AP1908-CR, District 3, 7/30/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police stopped the car Harris was driving in part because Skenandore, an officer-in-training, misread the data on his in-squad computer screen and wrongly concluded that the car’s owner didn’t have a valid license. (¶¶2-3, 5-7). His mistake doesn’t matter because the officer’s other observations justified the stop.