On Point: F. Private search or seizure

United States of America v. Peter Braun, 24-CR-164 (E.D. Wis. 9/3/25).

In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Court holds that law enforcement violated Braun’s rights when it viewed suspected child pornography without a search warrant when that child pornography had not been previously viewed by an employee of an ESP.

State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak, 2024AP469-CR, 1/16/25, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

Rauch Sharak’s appeal concerns whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when an electronic service provider (ESP) scans for and reviews digital files in an individual’s account that are flagged as child pornography; and when law enforcement subsequently opens and views any flagged files that the ESP sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

State v. Johnathan L. Johnson, 2019AP1398, 9/9/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson was arrested for OWI in a McDonald’s parking lot. He’d ordered some food at the drive-through, and an employee had noticed his intoxication and called police.

State v. Keith M. Abbott, 2020 WI App 25; case activity (including briefs)

After losing a suppression motion, Abbott pled “no contest” to 2nd degree intentional homicide. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of suppression for some evidence and reversed it as to other evidence. It held that Abbott’s mental breakdown during questioning did not relieve him of his duty make an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. And while it rejected the State’s request that it adopt a new harmless error test for cases where the defendant appeals the denial of suppression after pleading guilty, it nevertheless affirmed under the existing harmless error rule.

State v. Ricardo L. Conception, 2016AP1282-CR, 3/28, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Concepcion pled to 10 counts of possession of child pornography. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of his suppression motion because the search of his home was a private-party search, not a government search. It also held that Concepcion’s sentence (9 in, 6 out) was not unduly harsh, and his trial counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to tell the sentencing court that he is a “hero” of “exemplary character and stature.”

The 4th Amendment has been described by Conservative HQ as “one of the most important arrows in the quiver against bullying big government.” Because the government doesn’t just search and seize paper–it also goes after your cell phones, your Facebook account, your email (even when stored on Google’s server), your tweets, your DNA (by definition, your family’s DNA) etc.–we want a sturdy Fourth Amendment, right? Justice Scalia thinks so. He’s been called the 4th Amendment’s “

seventh circuit court of appeals decision

Habeas Review – IAC/Suppression Claim, Generally 

Under Strickland, Rann must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Grosshans, 424 F.3d at 590 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in habeas petitions, however, we must honor any reasonable state court decision,

State v. Troy L. Cameron, 2012 WI App 93 (recommended for publication); case activity

Prosecutorial Vindictiveness – Neither Presumptive or Actual for Increased Charges Following Rejected Plea Offer 

Cameron failed to establish prosecutorial vindictiveness in the filing of an amended information containing additional charges, after he rejected a plea offer to the original information. State v. Johnson, 2000 WI 12, 232 Wis.

County of Jefferson v. Karla J. Raue, 2010AP3131, District 4, 7/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Raue: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Act of bar patron (turning off car and taking key from Raue) was private, non-governmental action, therefore didn’t implicate Raue’s 4th amendment rights. State v. Butler, 2009 WI App 52, 317 Wis. 2d 515, 768 N.W.2d 46 (acts of private security guard not subject to 4th amendment scrutiny),

Waupaca County v. Heather M. Krueger, 2010AP1290, District 4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Krueger: John M. Carroll; case activity

Citizen’s detention of driver (for suspected drunk driving) until police arrived to effectuate probable cause-based arrest can’t support suppression of evidence because no state action was involved.

¶5        Krueger seeks suppression of evidence of her intoxicated driving obtained after she was stopped by Sparks,