On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

Village of Spring Green v. Michael D. Deignan, 2012AP1303, District 4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects the claim that § 175.40(6), which authorizes an officer to arrest or provide aid or assistance anywhere in the state under written inter-agency agreements, should govern the lawfulness of defendant’s arrest because it is more specific than Wis. Stat. § 175.40(2), which authorizes an officer to arrest while engaging “in fresh pursuit” anywhere in the state:

¶14      ….

State v. Jonathan A. Herr, 2013 WI App 37; case activity

In a case arising from a high-speed chase and subsequent arrest for OWI, the court holds that the use of unreasonable force to arrest the defendant does not require the suppression of evidence that was not a product of, or causally related to, the alleged unreasonable force.

Police saw Herr driving erratically and attempted to stop him.

State v. Edward C. Lefler, 2013 WI App 22; case activity

Probable cause found to search trunk of vehicle for evidence of burglary-related crimes, after an indisputably lawful stop for drunk driving:

¶11      …  “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”  United States v.

Dane County v. Steven D. Koehn, 2012AP1718, District 4, 1/10/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Motion to suppress evidence of intoxication properly denied because arresting officer had probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test. The court of appeals rejects Koehn’s claims that the officer’s failure to testify about the significance of the results of field sobriety tests means those results should have “minimal significance” in determining probable cause to administer the PBT:

¶10      I first conclude that,

State v. Bobby L. Tate, 2012AP336-CR, District 1, 12/27/12;  court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 6/12/13; case activity

Order allowing police to track the current location of cell phone upheld, rejecting Tate’s argument that it constituted an illegal search warrant:

¶8        The heart of Tate’s argument on appeal is that the order authorizing the tracking of Tate’s phone to find its location was invalid under Wis.

State v. Melvin Pugh, 2013 WI App 12; case activity

Two officers on patrol saw Pugh near two cars parked next to a vacant, boarded-up building posted with a “no parking” sign. This caused the officers to question Pugh—legitimately—about his possible illegal parking, but during that questioning the police also started asking about a nearby drug house and ended up physically seizing Pugh by grabbing his wrists when he slowly backed away.

State v. Mark A. Sanders, 2013 WI App 4; case activity

Search incident to arrest — area within arrestee’s “immediate control”

Search of bed in room from which defendant emerged just before being arrested upheld under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which permits an arresting officer to search the person arrested and the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control” in order to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime and protect officers’ safety.

State v. Robert Edwin Burkhardt, 2009AP2174-CR, District 1/4, 12/6/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – Consent 

Consent to search isn’t vitiated by nonpretextual threat to obtain a search warrant:

¶16      … (I)t is well established that, “[t]hreatening to obtain a search warrant does not vitiate consent if ‘the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine … and not merely a pretext to induce submission.’”  Artic,

Question Presented (from cert petition):

Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012))

Scotusblog page

Under Maryland law, DNA Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §2-504,

Winnebago County v. Anastasia G. Christenson, 2012AP1189, District 2, 10/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Probable Cause – PBT, § 343.303

¶11      At the time Putzer administered the PBT to Christenson, he was aware that she had driven her car into a ditch, smelled of “intoxicating beverages” around midnight on Saturday night/Sunday morning (a day and time that increases suspicion of alcohol consumption),