On Point: B. Search warrants

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement by authorizing seizure of the following: “[p]hotographs, movies, slides, videotape, negatives, and/or undeveloped film which would tend to identify … any other juvenile”; and “[m]agazines, books, movies, and photographs depicting nudity and/or sexual activities of juveniles or adults,

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶43. This court has explained on at least one prior occasion that both the experience and special knowledge of police officers who are applying for search warrants are among the facts that the warrant-issuing court may consider. 

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: Multaler seeks suppression of pornographic images found by the police while executing a search warrant for evidence of serial homicides committed more than 20 years earlier – in other words, that the information was too stale to support probable cause.

State v. Justin Kolp, 2002 WI App 17
For Kolp: Jennifer L. Abbott

Issue: Whether the police had a reasonable suspicion to frisk Kolp, when he showed up at a residence during execution of a search warrant for evidence of possession of marijuana and which authorized the search of all persons present on the premises.

Holding: Given case law recognition that execution of a search warrant for drugs may give rise to sudden violence (citing State v.

State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02
For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray

Issue: Whether the search warrant was based on intentionally or recklessly false averments, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

Holding:

¶23. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the issuing court commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.

State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray

Issue: Whether evidence illegally obtained through warrantless use of a thermal imaging device, in reliance on then-valid Wisconsin appellate court decision subsequently invalidated by a Supreme Court decision, must be suppressed.

Holding: Warrantless use of a thermal imaging device against Loranger must now clearly be regarded as a fourth amendment violation. 

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding:

¶13. There are no longer specific prerequisites to a finding of confidential informant reliability. Rather, the current test simply requires courts to “consider all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information.” 

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Although the age of the information in the warrant application – six months – gives pause, it isn’t sufficiently stale to defeat probable cause for drug trafficking.

¶22                        Jones argues that the key information in the warrant affidavit—the informant’s allegations—was over six months old.  

State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2001 WI 98, reversing State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208
For Eason: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether evidence obtained after entry of a home in violation of the announcement rule, because authorization was provided by an invalid no-knock warrant, is nonetheless admissible under the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement.

State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant, invalid on its face because unsupported by oath or affirmation, is covered by the good faith exception.

Holding:

¶24. Fourth and finally, the State asks this court to allow admission of the seized evidence under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.