On Point: 5. No-knock authorization

State v. Robert Brian Spencer, 2017AP1722-CR, 4/16/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Spencer raised many issues on appeal: insufficient evidence to support his conviction, multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and a Brady violation. This post focuses on the 2 most interesting claims: ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress evidence obtain via a no-knock warrant and the DA’s failure to turn over evidence of an officer’s disciplinary history.

State v. Marcus L. Pantoja, 2016AP1289, 7/05/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police raided the apartment where Pantoja was living with his girlfriend; he claims on appeal that there was neither probable cause for the warrant nor reasonable suspicion of danger justifying its no-knock authorization, which turned up drugs and guns. The court of appeals disagrees and affirms.

State v. Nick E. Sammon, District 2, 2011AP682-CR, 7/25/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Search Warrant – Erroneous Information in Application

A detective’s application for a search warrant of Sammons’ residence asserted that Sammons had been convicted in Texas for drug and burglary offenses (in fact, both had been dismissed after deferred adjudication of guilt). The assertions in the warrant application were based on the NCIC database,

State v. Thomas William Brady, 2007 WI App 33, PFR filed 2/13/07
For Brady: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the target of a search was not at home when the police forcibly entered pursuant to a search warrant, their unannounced entry did not, although not authorized by the warrant, violate the fourth amendment.

¶13   The first consideration is the safety of the police and others.

State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208, affirmed in pertinent part, but reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶21-26
For Eason (in SCt): Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the no-knock warrant was supported by reasonable suspicion that announcing police presence would create danger.

Holding: The showing wasn’t sufficient to abrogate announcement: though the warrant noted the occupants’

State v. Dennis Moslavac, 230 Wis. 2d 338, 602 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moslavac: Michael S. Holzman.

Issue/Holding: The knock-and-announce rule does not apply when the target premises are unoccupied.

Police have authority to forcibly execute a search warrant when the premises are unoccupied. It follows that the knock-and-announce rule doesn’t apply to unoccupied premises, the purposes of the rule not being served if no one’s there.