On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Sierra Ann Desing, 2017AP490-491, 10/11/17, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A citizen informant told 911 that he saw Desing pulled over on the side of the road hanging out her door. He asked if she was okay and was told “yes,” but he later saw her driving erratically on the highway. Deputies went to her house, knocked “loudly,” received no response, discovered her back door and patio door open on May 28 at 7:30 a.m., saw her dog running loose in the backyard, and, fearing that she might be choking on her own vomit, entered the house and searched until they found her asleep in the basement.

State v. Sarah A. Schmidt, 2017AP724-CR, District 2, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

For operating while intoxicated, no less—even though there was scant evidence of impaired driving and the driver exhibited no slurred speech and apparently normal balance and motor coordination.

State v. Damien Markeith Divone Scott, 2017 WI App 74; case activity (including briefs)

In this case of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that the stop of a car at a police checkpoint was justified by the “special needs” of law enforcement.

State v. Dustin M. Sherman, 2016AP2225, 10/5/17, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sherman argued that police lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop that led to his refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test. The officer stopped him for a violation of the statute requiring a tail lamp to emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. §347.13(1). When asked how close he had to get before he could see Sherman’s tail lamp, the officer said “I couldn’t tell you but it was less than 500 feet.”

State v. Michael J. Mansfield, 2016AP2423-CR, 10/3/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mansfield argued police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to detain him based on a tip from an anonymous Turtle Lake Casino employee. The court of appeals holds the tipster should be treated as a citizen informant and, under the standard for citizen informants, the tip provided reasonable suspicion.

Collins v. Virginia, USSC No. 16-1027, cert granted 9/28/17; lower court opinion; USSC docket; SCOTUSblog page

Question presented: Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Byrd v. United States, USSC No. 2016-1371, cert granted 9/28/17; 3rd Circuit’s opinion; docket; SCOTUSblog page
Question presented:

A police officer may not conduct a suspicionless and warrantless search of a car if the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car–i.e., an expectation of privacy that society accepts as reasonable. Does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.

State v. Sarah Ann Wallk, 2017AP61, Distirct 1, 9/26/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Wallk’s claim that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion to detain her for field sobriety tests after she was stopped for speeding. 

State v. Guy S. Hillary, 2017 WI App 67; case activity (including briefs)

In this case, a deputy applied for a warrant, saying he had

received anonymous information on June 13, 2014 that a subject went to Guy S Hillary’s residence to fix a vehicle and Hillary proceeded to show the complainant a very large marijuana grow in a garage on Hillary’s property. Complainant stated that there are several grow rooms within the garage containing several large marijuana plants. Complainant stated that Hillary was bragging about how much money he makes selling marijuana.

Both parties agree that this did not establish probable cause–their dispute is about whether other information in the affidavit was lawfully obtained and, if not, whether it had to be excised. The court of appeals, however, rejects the state’s concession and declares this tip good enough.

State v. Gerald Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; certification granted 9/11/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Whether the warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist pursuant to Wisconsin’s implied consent law, where no exigent circumstances exist or have been argued, violates the Fourth Amendment.