On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

Missouri v. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, 4/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012)

In a decision that works a major change in Wisconsin law governing nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws in OWI cases, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the evanescent quality of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream does not in and of itself create an exigent circumstance:

The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.

State v. Kenneth F. Johnston, 2012AP2427-CR, District 3, 4/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The search of Johnston’s car was supported by probable cause to believe there were open intoxicants in the car:

¶17      In this case, before [Officer] Wojcik searched the vehicle for open intoxicants, Wojcik smelled the odor of intoxicants emanating from the driver-side door.  Wojcik knew, based on Johnston’s preliminary breath test,

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR, District 1, 4/9/13, court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 2/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 132; case activity

Terry stop — reasonableness of length of detention; arrest –probable cause

Kennedy was the driver of a car that struck a pedestrian. (¶¶3-5). After about 30 minutes on the scene investigating the incident,

State v. Andrew Alexander Jackson, Jr., 2013 WI App 66; case activity

The circuit court erred in suppressing marijuana found in the trunk of Jackson’s car because there was probable cause to search the trunk based on the discovery of marijuana residue, $1,961 in cash, and a digital scale in the passenger compartment of the car:

¶10      Like in [United States v.] Ross,

State v. Michael E. Zinke, 2012AP2087-CR, District 4, 4/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The stop and arrest of Zinke by a police officer well outside his jurisdiction was proper under a mutual aid statute, § 66.0313(2), even though the officer was “miles away” from his jurisdiction and initiated contact with the agency that had jurisdiction.

These are the facts: A Village of Westfield police officer was traveling on a county highway in Marquette County when he observed a vehicle  repeatedly deviating from its designated lane.

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.