On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

Terry Michael Honeycutt v. United States, USSC No. 16-142, 2017 WL 2407468 (June 5, 2017), reversing United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2016); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

A federal statute—21 U.S.C. § 853—mandates forfeiture of “any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of” certain drug crimes. This case concerns how § 853 operates when two or more defendants act as part of a conspiracy. Specifically, the issue is whether, under § 853, a defendant may be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirator derived from the crime but that the defendant himself did not acquire. The Court holds that such liability is inconsistent with the statute’s text and structure. (Slip op. at 1).

State v. Sara Ann Ponfil, 2016AP2059-CR, 5/31/17, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer discovered cocaine after he detained Ponfil, who, as the officer approached, got out of one of two vehicles parked next to each other outside a bar. The court of appeals concludes that, considered together, the bar’s status as a “high-crime area,” the behavior of the vehicles’ occupants, and the presence of a known gang member in the other vehicle provided reasonable suspicion to believe she was engaged in illegal conduct.

Bill Tyroler, On Point’s original writer, has kept a low profile since he retired. But lucky for us he can’t contain himself regarding SCOW’s decision in State v. Howes and court of appeals recent certification in State v. Gerald Smith. He says SCOW’s Howes opinion allows defense counsel to argue that exigent circumstances are required for a warrantless blood draw of an unconscious motorist. See Bill’s comments here and here.

State v. Gerald P. Mitchell, 2015AP304-CR; District 2, 5/17/17, 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.

City of Pewaukee v. John Jay Kennedy, 2016AP2383, 5/17/17, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Kennedy’s vehicle after running the plates and seeing that its registered owner, Kennedy, had a warrant out for his arrest.  Kennedy was driving, and was eventually arrested for OWI.

You’ve no doubt heard about digital devices from outfits like Nest or Amazon Echo or Google Home that allow you remotely to control your thermostat or your lights and blinds or take video of the goings-on in your yard or on your porch. Perhaps you’ve also heard about the case in Arkansas in which the prosecution was seeking audio from the defendant’s Amazon Echo to determine if it contained evidence about his culpability for a murder.

State v. Brian L. Zieglmeier, 2016AP1815-CR, 4/25/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

What are the odds that a driver who had been drinking beer would get pulled over by an Officer Pilsner? That’s what happened to Zieglmeier, who had been going 42 in a 25 mph zone. While he didn’t seem disoriented when he spoke to Pilsner, he also didn’t pass the “smell test.”

State v. Lemberger, 2017 WI 39, April 20, 2017, affirming a one-judge court of appeals decision; 2017AP1452; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court declares Lemberger’s legal claim “unsettled,” and thus holds his trial counsel did not perform deficiently by not raising it. The court’s opinion, however, fails to present the actual substance of the claim.

So asks Orin Kerr in a post at the Volokh Conspiracy about a decision from the Fifth Circuit, Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 2107 WL 1393702 (April 18, 2017), involving a § 1983 lawsuit against police alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

State v. Steven T. Delap, 2016AP2196-CR, 4/20/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 7/18/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 64; case activity (including briefs)

Police tried to arrest Delap outside his home on warrants for fleeing from a couple of traffic stops, but when they approached and said “stop, police,” Delap fled into his home. The police followed and arrested him inside. (¶¶3-6). Delap’s challenge to his arrest is no more successful than his attempt to flee.