On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Michael Anthony Dotson, 2019AP1082-CR, District 3, 11/24/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Though this is a “close case” (¶28), the objectively reasonable inferences from the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer who stopped Dotson’s car did not provide reasonable suspicion to believe that Dotson’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limits or that his ability to operate his vehicle was impaired. Thus, the officer’s detention of Dotson to conduct field sobriety tests was unlawful.

Caniglia v. Strom, USSC No. 20-157, cert granted 11/20/20

Question presented:

Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

United States v. Cooley, USSC No. 19-1414, cert. granted 11-20-20

Question presented:

Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, certification granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the certification):

Did police violate Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights by:

1. exceeding the scope of Burch’s consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages;
2. unlawfully retaining the entire cell phone download after it completed its initial investigation and closing the case without charging Burch; and
3. unlawfully conducting a second search of the cell phone download months after closing the initial investigation.

State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2019AP1317, 11/17/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/27/21, affirmed, 3/22/22; case activity (including briefs)

Police found Van Linn injured and intoxicated near the scene of an accident, and an ambulance took him to the hospital for treatment. At the hospital Van Linn refused an officer’s request that consent to a blood draw; the officer, claiming exigency, ordered blood taken anyway. Van Linn moved to suppress and the court held there was no exigency, and accordingly suppressed the BAC results. Shortly thereafter, the district attorney asked the court to approve a subpoena of Van Linn’s treatment records from the hospital; the court issued the subpoena and the hospital turned over the records, which included the results of the hospital’s own blood test. Van Linn asked the court to suppress those as well, but it declined. He was convicted and appealed.

State v. Timothy M. Argall, 2020AP907-CR, District 2, 11/18/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Argall was arrested for OWI based on a plethora of evidence—viz., driving after dark without headlights, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, inability to follow questions or give direct answers, admission of drinking 4 to 6 beers, 0.201 PBT. His gripe, though, is with the pre-FST pat down that found a pot pipe in his pocket.

State v. Steven L. Sternitzky, 2019AP2185-CR, District 4, 11/5/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sternitzky argues he was arrested for OWI without probable cause and that his trial on the charge was marred by the judge’s instruction to the jury regarding the presumption of intoxication and automatic admissibility of chemical test results. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.

State v. Brian A. Plencner, 2019AP517-CR, District 2, 10/28/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals holds trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of evidence found on Plencner’s computer equipment based on the delay in analyzing the equipment.

State v. William Lawrence Bonfiglio, 2019AP188-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police immobilized Bonfiglio because they thought he was going to resist the blood draw authorized under the search warrant they had obtained. The court of appeals rejects Bonfiglio’s claims this constituted an unreasonable execution of the warrant.

State v. Dawn M. Prado, 2016AP308, cross-petitions for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 10/21/20; case activity (including briefs and, now, PFRs!)

You’ve heard this one before. Here’s our post on the court of appeals decision, which struck down the unconscious-driver provisions of the implied-consent statute but nevertheless declined to suppress the blood draw results under the good-faith doctrine. Perhaps you imagined the matter resolved, particularly given that after several failures to decide the question, SCOW had begun declining the court of appeals’ certification requests on the topic. No such luck.