On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Kenneth C. House, 2013 WI App 111; case activity

House was stopped for operating with a suspended registration. After running House’s license and learning he was on probation for a drug offense, the officer returned House’s license and issued him a warning for the suspended registration. The officer then retrieved his police dog who, after sniffing around the vehicle, alerted on the driver and passenger doors.

State v. Scott E. Bartelt, 2013AP110-CR, District 2, 8/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

¶1       …. During his investigation of a bar fight, a village of Butler police officer came to the conclusion that Bartelt should not drive home and offered to give him a ride. Bartelt declined the ride, told the officer he would walk home, and walked away. Not twenty minutes later,

State v. Raylene A. Brinkmeier, 2013AP15-CR, District 4, 8/1/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police had probable cause under § 343.303 to request Brinkmeier to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT):

¶13     Contrary to Brinkmeier’s argument, the evidence supporting probable cause in this appeal does not differ significantly from the evidence in [County of Jefferson v.

Town of Freedom v. Matthew W. Fellinger, 2013AP614, District 3, 8/6/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Fellinger argues that field sobriety tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment because “[a]n inherent right as a human being is to control and coordinate the actions of [his or her] own body[,]” and, therefore “a fundamental expectation of privacy is implicated when a person is subject to the performance of [field sobriety tests].” (¶12).

State v. Ryan Erik Diggins, 2012AP526-CR, District 1, 7/30/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

There was no objectively reasonable suspicion that Diggins was loitering in violation of Milwaukee’s loitering ordinance, § 106-31(1), where Diggins was seen standing for five minutes, doing nothing, at a gas station– “a place to which the public is invited”–and then moved across the street to a bus stop–“another equally public place”–even though both places were in a high crime area:

¶13      Here,

State v. Michael E. Mauermann, 2012AP2568-CR, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Iowa County Ordinance § 600.08 provides that “[n]o person shall operate a motor vehicle so as to make any loud, disturbing or unnecessary noise in or about any public street, alley, park or private residence which may tend to annoy or disturb another by causing the tires of said vehicle to squeal,

State v. Diane M. Millard, 2012AP2646-CR, District 2, 7/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A search warrant was supported by probable cause because the two events cited in the warrant request–a controlled heroin buy in January 2011 and a garbage search in July 2011 revealing “a small, circle shaped screen with burnt [THC] residue on it” (¶2)–were not too far apart in time or too distinct in nature:

¶9        Regarding the staleness challenge,

State v. Constance Ilene Osborne, 2012AP2540-CR, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The results of a blood draw done by an EMT at the jail after Osborne was arrested for OWI were admissible because the method and manner of the blood draw were reasonable and the EMT was acting under the direction of a physician, as required by § 343.305(5)(b).

State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home and conduct a search. The court concludes the rule governing third-party consent articulated in United States v.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review)

Should this Court accept review to examine when law enforcement can electronically track a cell phone in order to locate the phone’s user?

More specifically, should this Court review a) whether obtaining a cell phone’s location constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, b) if so,