On Point: B. Search warrants

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

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant unsupported by oath or affirmation must be suppressed.

Holding: The requirement that a search warrant be supported by oath or affirmation is an explicit and long-standing feature of both state and federal constitutions, as well as legislation, and is essential to the warrant’s validity.

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether evidence seized under a warrant defective because unsupported by probable cause may be admissible under the good-faith doctrine.

Holding: Given that, subsequent to trial-level litigation, the supreme court recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98,

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause.

Holding:

¶18. …. The State points to several facts in the affidavits: (1) Mary’s telephone was off the hook the day she was killed, suggesting “that the perpetrator had been inside the residence”; (2) Mary was shot and stabbed,

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State v. Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz, 2000 WI 4, 231 Wis.2d 782, 604 N.W.2d 543, reversing unpublished decision
For Orta: Mark F. Nielsen, Schwartz, Tifte & Nielsen
For Ruiz: Michael P. Reisterer, Jr.
For amici (SPD & WACDL): Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate, & Howard B. Eisenberg

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police rely on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.

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. Lance R. Ward, 2000 WI 3, 231 Wis.2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517, reversing 222 Wis. 2d 311, 588 N.W.2d 645
For Ward: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether the search warrant established probable cause despite the absence of an explicit connection between the owner’s alleged drug dealing and his residence.

Holding: The supporting affidavit’s assertion that the defendant was a drug supplier “who lives on Rocye”

State v. Keith Schroeder, 2000 WI App 128, 237 Wis.2d 575, 613 N.W.2d 911
For Schroeder: Kevin D. Musolf

Issue/Holding: Inspection of child pornography on a computer, found during a warrant-authorized search of a computer for unrelated material, was in plain view so as to be subject to seizure without a separate warrant:

13            In order for the plain view doctrine to apply:  “(1) the evidence must be in plain view;

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a search of documents exceeded the scope of a warrant authorizing a search for currency, among other things.

Holding: Because the warrant authorized a search for currency, the officers were allowed to look through documents where bills could have been hidden,

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.