On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

Docket

Decision below: United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

Questions Presented:

1. [from Petition:] Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

Docket

Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143

Questions Presented (from Petition):

This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v.

Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11

… The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

State v. Matthew P. Rick, 2010AP1521,District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rick: Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Warrantless blood draw is permissible under exigent circumstances doctrine, upon lawful arrest for non–jailable, civil violation. State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), followed.

State v. Charles L. Wendt, 2010AP2416, District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Michael C. Witt; case activity

“Momentary incursion” (or, “slight deviation”) into oncoming lane provided probable cause to stop motorist for violation of § 346.05. Having properly stopped Wendt, the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, given the odor of alcohol and latter’s “glassy and bloodshot eyes”: “obvious and classic”

State v. Blair T. Davis, 2011AP320,District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davis: Daniel J. Posanski; case activity

Arrest by campus policeman, outside his jurisdiction, was justifiable under either citizen’s arrest, or fresh pursuit, doctrines.

¶5        The fresh pursuit doctrine states that any Wisconsin peace officer may pursue and arrest a suspect “anywhere in the state” for a violation of any law or ordinance that the officer is authorized to enforce as long as the officer is in “fresh pursuit.”  Wis.

State v. Brian T. St. Martin, 2011 WI 44, on certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Consent to Search – Co-Tenant – Georgia v. Randolph

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) holds that a physically present resident’s objection trumps a co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search of a residence.

State v. Omar F. Ofarril-Valez, 2010AP3109-CR, District 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ofarril-Velez: Dustin C. Haskell, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The court marshals “nine indicia of impairment” to support its conclusion of probable cause to arrest: time (2:30 a.m.); driving 3-4 miles over posted limit; “light odor” of alcohol; admission of drinking 1 beer; glassy eyes; difficulty complying with instructions;

State v. Deundra R. Lathan, 2011 WI App 104 (recommended for publication); for Lathan: George S. Tauscheck; case activity

Consent to Search, Co-Occupant

Consent to search premises given by one occupant overrides refusal to consent by co-occupant when neither is the subject of the search or ensuing arrest (resolving question expressly held open by Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 120 n.

City of Sun Prairie v. Michael H. Smith, 2010AP2607, District 4, 5/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Smith: Tracey A. Wood; case activity

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(5)(a) imposes the following obligations on law enforcement: “(1) to provide a primary test at no charge to the suspect; (2) to use reasonable diligence in offering and providing a second alternate test of its choice at no charge to the suspect;