On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Anastasia A. Lusty, 2010AP2827-CR, District 2, 9/21/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lusty: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Independent police investigation sufficiently corroborated enough details of tips from anonymous informants to support probable cause for a search warrant.

¶9        We reject Lusty’s argument.  Based on our reading of the record, we are more than satisfied that the facts before the magistrate,

State v. Ricky O. Halverson, 2011AP240-CR, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Halverson: Walter R. Andrew; case activity

Officer, whose investigation of single-car crash led him to Halverson’s home, wasn’t properly engaged in community caretaker exercise when he took Halverson into custody, supposedly for his own good, ¶¶8-14. Community caretaker test, State v. Kramer, 2009 WI 14,

City of Sheboygan Falls v. John D. Prinsen, 2011AP700, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Prinsen: Kirk B. Obear, Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Probable cause supported stop for driving wrong way on highway, based on information provided ion a 911 call; State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, applied:

¶11      The Rutzinski standard is met in this case.  

State v. Andrew W. Rosenthal, 2011AP828-CR, District 3, 9/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rosenthal: Erica L. Bauer; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car, at 2:30 a.m., in isolated area which was site of frequent break-ins; State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 47, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997), distinguished:

¶14      Here, conversely, we conclude that Rosenthal’s conduct does not describe the conduct of a large number of innocent persons.  

on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams:  Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Search Warrants – Issuance by Commissioner

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether § 757.69(1)(b) confers on court commissioner authority to issue search warrants, or whether Wis. Const. art. VII, § 2 reserves such power to judges.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

State v. William M. Hughes, 2011AP647-CR, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hughes: Michael C. Witt; case activity

Traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion to believe Hughes was operating while intoxicated:

• The stop occurred at night, after a football game, when there is an increased frequency of drunk driving;
• Citizen informant reported observing vehicle weaving outside lane of travel on Interstate,

State v. Steven A. Avery, 2011 WI App 124 (recommended for publication); for Avery: Martha K. Askins, Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Search Warrant – Execution – Reasonableness 

Warrant-based search of Avery’s property was a reasonable continuation of the original search 3 days earlier.

General statement:

¶18      Generally, searches are subject to the “one warrant, one search” rule.  

State v. Bridgette M. Glaze, 2010AP3128-CR, District 2, 8/24/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Glaze: John C. Orth; case activity

Although Glaze’s stop by one officer investigating possible domestic violence was likely unsupported (¶9), the stop was adequately supported by an alternative basis: observations of a second, off-duty officer which, under the “collective knowledge” doctrine were imputed to the first officer and supplied reasonable suspicion that Glaze was driving while intoxicated.

State v. James G. Brereton, 2011 WI App 127 (recommended for publication); for Brereton: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

After lawfully stopping Brereton, the police removed him from his car, towed it to a lot and then, after obtaining a warrant, attached a GPS tracking device. Ensuing monitoring led to information connecting Brereton to a crime. The court holds as follows:

• Fourth amendment concerns are implicated because the tracking device was placed inside the hood while the vehicle was in police possession and out of public view,¶8,

certification; for Rowan: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 10/25/11

Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person,