On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2018 WI 87, 7/6/18, reversing a circuit court order on bypass of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin has recognized 2 grounds for applying the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence–to deter police misconduct and to ensure judicial integrity.  State v. Hess, 2010 WI 82, ¶¶20, 33, 327 Wis. 2d 524, 785 N.W.2d 568; State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶3, 31 n.10, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625. The majority opinion in this case clarifies that a judge’s failure to follow the law when issuing a warrant cannot serve as an independent basis for the exclusionary rule. 

State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2018 WI 84, 7/3/18, on certification from the court of appeals; 2015AP304-CR, SCOTUS cert. granted, 1/11/19, vacated and remanded, 6/29/19; case activity (including briefs)

This is the supreme court’s third attempt to decide whether provisions of Wisconsin’s implied consent law comport with the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve been following along, you might have predicted the result: no majority opinion, no binding holding, and, as the lead opinion laments, a state of confusion going forward. Briefly: the lead, 3-justice opinion says “we overrule State v. Padley,” a court of appeals decision addressing a related (though not identical) issue, but it in fact does no such thing: it seems, in fact, to echo much of the discussion in Padley, and anyway, it’s a three-justice minority, and can’t overrule anything. A two-justice concurrence says the legislature can’t legislate away a motorist’s right to refuse consent to a search, but would hold that a blood draw of an unconscious OWI suspect doesn’t require a warrant anyway, despite a pretty clear statement to the contrary from SCOTUS. And a two-justice dissent also says the implied consent law doesn’t equal constitutional consent. So, just as in State v. Hager from this term, you have a result that favors the state, even though a majority of justices disagree with the state’s constitutional argument.

State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 7/3/18, reversing in part and remanding an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court holds there were exigent circumstances that allowed police to draw blood from Dalton without a warrant after he refused to consent to a blood draw. But a majority of the court also holds that the sentencing judge erred by explicitly imposing a harsher sentence on Dalton because he refused to consent to the blood draw.

State v. Marquis Lakeith Pendelton, 2017AP2081-CR, 6/19/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A caller reported to police that 2 suspicious males had been looking into cars parked in a church lot at 1:30 a.m, at 68th and Silver Spring in Milwaukee and had just run away. An officer thought that the dispatcher said that one of the males was Black and wearing a dark hoodie.

Tyson Timbs v. Indiana, USSC 17-1091, certiorari granted 6/18/18

Question presented:

Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

State v. Jessica M. Randall, 2017AP1518-Cr, District 4, 6/14/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), review granted 10/9/18, reversed, 2019 WI 80; case activity (including briefs)

Here’s a rare sighting! One district of the court of appeals has declared that it is not bound by a decision addressing the same set of facts issued by another district. This is what you call SCOW bait (sorry to say, given that this is a defense win). Randall was arrested for OWI, an officer read the “Informing the Accused” card, and she agreed to a blood test. A few days later, her lawyer sent the lab a letter withdrawing her consent. The court of appeals held that Randall had a right to withdraw her consent up to the time when blood was actually tested. But just 6 months ago, the court of appeals reached the opposite result in State v. Sumnicht. 

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2017AP2006-CR, 6/12/18, District 1;(1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/9/18, reversed 2019 WI 45, ; case activity (including briefs)

Police stopped Wright’s car because a headlight was out, but they asked him whether he had a concealed carry permit and weapons in the car. He admitted he had a firearm and explained that he had recently completed the CCW course. Too bad. He was arrested and charged with 1 count of carrying a concealed weapon. He moved to suppress on the grounds that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to question him about a CCW permit and weapons.

State v. Steven T. Delap, 2018 WI 64, 6/6/18, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP2196, case activity (including briefs)

Police had two warrants to arrest Delap. They went to what someone had told them was his address, and someone they thought was Delap ran from them toward the back door of the residence. They chased him, prevented him from closing the door, and arrested him.

Winnebago County v. Lesa L. Maus, 2017AP1979, 5/30/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Maus challenges her stop on the ground that the citizen witness who called in a driver going the wrong way on the interstate said the car was beige, but her car, the one stopped, was black.

Dane County v. Damian A. Bethke, 2017AP1284, 5/31/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bethke was acquitted of his OWI charge, so this is an appeal only of his refusal, and his claim is that the officer who detained him violated his Fourth Amendment rights.