On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Donald D. Laufer, 2012AP915, District 2, 4/3/13; court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity

The officer’s erroneous reading of Laufer’s license plate, which caused the officer to wrongly believe that the plate might not be registered to the vehicle, nonetheless supported stop of the car under the good-faith rule, adopting the reasoning of State v. Reierson, No. 2010AP596, unpublished slip op.

State v. Marvin L. Dillman, 2012AP865-CR, District 2, 3/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop truck which she first saw “sideways” on the road and then observed accelerate quickly toward the curb before correcting itself and speeding away so quickly it required her to accelerate her squad car to 50 m.p.h. over three or four blocks to catch up:

¶7        Kollmann witnessed Dillman’s truck sideways in the roadway and then travel at a speed in excess of the speed limit.

Florida v. Jardines, USSC No. 11-564, 3/26/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34 (2011)

In this 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s front porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was conducted without probable cause,

Question presented:

When a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, do the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pretrial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges?

Lower court decision: United States v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

The issue of pretrial orders under the federal property forfeiture statute that freeze a defendant’s assets–and thereby impair (or destroy) the defendant’s ability to hire counsel of choice–obviously makes this case of interest to attorneys retained to defend federal criminal charges.

State v. Royce Markel Wheeler, 2013 WI App 53; case activity

Police went to a duplex in response to domestic abuse complaint from what they believed was the lower unit, with the caller saying she had been assaulted and was bleeding. (¶¶2, 4-6). After officers spent some 20 minutes knocking on the duplex’s common front door and yelling, a woman named Bates opened the door, saying she lived in the upper unit.

State v. Bryant A. Preinfalk, 2012AP2060-CR, District 4, 3/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The stop of Preinfalk’s car was lawful because in light of observations made by the officer, the anonymous tip provided reasonable suspicion to conclude the car was occupied by persons who had been involved in a fight at the Sidelines Bar:

¶11      It is not disputed that the tip in this case was anonymous.

Grant County v. Daniel A. Vogt, 2012AP1812, District 4, 3/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/15/13; case activity

Where police officer pulled up behind parked car without activating his emergency lights, approached the car, rapped on the window, and directed the driver to roll the window down, the driver was seized under State v.

State v. Todd A. Laws, 2012AP1930-CR, District 2, 3/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Stop of Laws’s vehicle was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion he was driving while intoxicated, contrasting State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634:

¶9        Each case stands on its own unique facts; however, the conduct in this case arguably provided more reason for suspicion than that in Post.  

State v. Antoine Lamont Massey, 2012AP1124-CR, District 1, 3/5/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A daughter of the leaseholder had both actual and apparent authority to consent to a search of the apartment, including the back bedroom in which drugs were found, applying, among other cases, State v. Tomlinson, 2002 WI 91, 254 Wis. 2d 502, 648 N.W.2d 367,

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

• 1. Without obtaining a warrant, police tracked Subdiaz-Osorio’s location through the signal transmitted from his cell phone. Did the trial court err in denying his motion to suppress this evidence?

• 2. Did the court of appeals in deciding that the evidence that came from the illegal search was harmless?