On Point blog, page 59 of 141
SCOTUS: Satellite-based sex offender monitoring is a “search” under the 4th Amendment
Grady v. North Carolina, USSC No. 14-593, 2015 WL 1400850, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing State v. Grady, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014) (unpublished order); docket
The Supreme Court holds that a state conducts a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attaches a device like a GPS bracelet to a person’s body without consent for the purpose of tracking the person’s movements.
Driver’s refusal of blood test held unreasonable despite evidence that he didn’t understand his rights
County of Eau Claire v. Scott S. Mahler, 2014AP1696-FT, 3/31/15, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication) click here for docket and briefs
Mahler, who was arrested for OWI, refused to consent to a chemical test of his blood. The court of appeals found his refusal unreasonable even though the arresting officer failed to have Mahler sign the “Informing the Accused” form and Mahler testified that he did not understand the information on it.
Search of detained passenger was legal because police had probable cause to arrest him
State v. Antwan D. Hopson, 2014AP1430-CR, District 2, 3/25/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Even though Hopson was not formally under arrest at the time police searched him in a manner that exceeded the allowable scope of a frisk, the search was legal because the police had probable cause to arrest Hopson for possession of marijuana.
State v. Daniel Iverson, 2014AP515-FT, petition for review granted 1/16/15
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; Click here for docket and briefs
Issue (composed by On Point):
Whether an articulable suspicion or probable cause that a person has violated a statute punishable only by forfeiture can justify a warrantless seizure of the person?
State v. Brett W. Dumstrey, 2013AP857-CR, petition for review granted 3/16/15
Review of a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the police violate the Fourth Amendment by entering the parking garage of an apartment complex without a warrant and without the consent of a resident of the complex?
SCOW: Unlawful use of drug dog at suspect’s front door didn’t taint subsequent search warrant
State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).
Officer’s statement about authority to search car didn’t taint driver’s consent to search of his person
State v. David M. Wagner, 2014AP842-CR, District 2, 2/25/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Wagner voluntarily consented to a search of his person, and was not merely “[a]cquiesc[ing] to an unlawful assertion of police authority,” State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, 16, 299 Wis. 2d 675, 729 N.W.2d 182, when he agreed to the search on the heels of the officer’s assertion of authority to search Wagner’s car.
Stop based on traffic violation, FSTs, and PBT upheld
State v. Frederick C. Thomas, III, 2014AP816-818, 2/19/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs
Thomas was convicted of OWI, operating a car with a prohibited alcohol concentration, unsafe lane deviation, and failure to signal a turn. He challenged the stop, the extension of the stop to conduct field sobriety tests, and the administration of the preliminary breath test. The circuit court denied suppression, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Court of appeals affirms suppression; sees one-shot-sized container exception to Gant
State v. Miranda K. Hinderman, 2014AP1787-CR, 2/12/15, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs
Just because police had grounds to arrest Hinderman for OWI didn’t mean that they also had reason to believe that evidence relating to the OWI might be found in a 3″x3″ pouch inside her purse, inside her car, where they happened to find marijuana and drug paraphernalia.
After lawful arrest for OWI, police may search car for more evidence
State v. Darrell G. Lewis, 2014AP2289-CR, 2/12/14; District 4 (one-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for briefs
After arresting Lewis for OWI, police searched his car and found marijuana. Lewis moved to suppress based on Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which permits a warrantless search of a car and containers within incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime might be found there. Lewis lost his motion and appeal.