On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Drew A. Heinrich, 2015AP1524-CR, District 4, 2/25/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The stop of the car Heinrich was driving was reasonable under State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, because one of the two owners of the car had an occupational license and the vehicle was being operated outside the times allowed by that license.

State v. Andy J. Parisi, 2016 WI 10, 2/24/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Police found Andy Parisi unconscious and having trouble breathing. Almost two and a half hours later, at a hospital, an officer had his blood drawn to test for heroin. The state supreme court now holds that the circumstances of this case–which seem to boil down to the fact that heroin naturally dissipates within the bloodstream–were “exigent,” justifying the warrantless search.

United States v. Gregorio Paniagua-Garcia, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2540, 2/18/16

The stop of Paniagua-Garcia for texting while driving was unlawful because the officer had no basis for concluding Paniagua-Garcia was using his cellphone to send a text or email as opposed to using it in some way that isn’t prohibited.

State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 2/10/16, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This is a painful loss for the defense. Matalonis won suppression at the court of appeals. The State filed a petition for review, which, of course, was granted. SCOW held oral argument and took a tentative vote before Justice Crooks died. After his death, the vote changed to 3-3. So you’d expect this case to end in a tie, which would affirm the court of appeals’ decision. But that did not happen.  Instead, though she has not participated in any other case argued and decided before she joined SCOW,  Justice R. Bradley emerged to cast the decisive vote against the defendant here. Even worse, Justice Prosser says the majority opinion extends the community caretaker exception just enough to swallow the 4th Amendment. Ouch.

SCOTUS will hear argument in Utah v. Strieff on February 22nd. Orin Kerr just published, on SCOTUSblog, this analysis of the future of the exclusionary rule, which has come under attack in recent decisions like Davis v. U.S. and Herring v. U.S. If you’ve got a Fourth Amendment issue, his post is worth a read.

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs).

Issue (composed by On Point):

Is hot pursuit of a suspect based upon probable cause for a jailable offense a stand-alone justification for a warrantless home entry and arrest or must law enforcement reasonably believe that a delay in obtaining a warrant would endanger life, risk destruction of evidence, or greatly enhance the likelihood of the person’s escape?

State v. Richard J. Slayton, 2015AP1255-CR, 2/3/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity, briefs

Slayton, who was arrested for OWI, challenged a search warrant authorizing his blood draw. The supporting affidavit stated that an officer had reviewed his driving record and noted previous OWI conviction that were “prior countable offenses” under Ch. 346. But it provided no other information about the alleged convictions and thus no way to verify their existence.

Michael J. Belleau v. Edward F. Wall, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-3225, 1/29/16

The Seventh Circuit holds that Wis. Stat. § 301.48, which requires certain sex offenders to wear a GPS monitoring device, does not violate either the Fourth Amendment or the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. This decision reverses a Wisconsin federal district judge’s decision striking down the statute.

State v. David W. Howes, 2014AP1870-CR, 1/28/16, District 4; certification granted 4/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 18; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

This appeal presents a single recurring issue: whether provisions in Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizing a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious suspect violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifically, the issue is whether the “implied consent,” deemed to have occurred before a defendant is a suspect, is voluntary consent for purposes of the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

City of West Allis v. Teresa A. Michals, 2015AP1688 & 2015AP1689, District 1, 1/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe Michals was operating while intoxicated or in a “disorderly manner” in violation of a city ordinance.