On Point: B. Search warrants

State v. Laquanda N. Strawder, 2022AP2112, 1/17/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court held that police lacked probable cause to arrest Strawder for OWI and suppressed the resulting evidence, including her breath test results. The state appealed, claiming the circuit court’s factual findings and analysis were so lacking the court of appeals should review the factual record ab initio. The court of appeals thinks the trial court did the proper analysis and made sufficient factual findings, but disagrees with its legal conclusion. In the facts as found by the trial court, the court of appeals sees probable cause to arrest, and thus reverses and remands for the prosecution to continue.

State v. Lauren Dannielle Peterson, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Peterson’s circuit court win is short-lived after the court of appeals concludes that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate an OWI investigation and probable cause existed to ask Peterson to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT).

State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2022AP2060-CR, 10/12/23, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision recommended for publication, COA clarifies that the “execution” of a search warrant does not include forensic analysis that can occur weeks or months later. Accordingly, even though those activities may occur outside the statutory window, this does not create a statutory (as opposed to constitutional) argument for suppression.

State v. Nicholas Anthony Stilwell, 2022AP1839, 7/20/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case has facts remarkably like those of State v. Cundy, a recommended-for-publication case the court of appeals decided the week before. Police received a report of a hit-and-run of a parked vehicle, and learned the truck that did the hitting and running was registered to Stilwell. They went to Stilwell’s apartment and found the truck parked nearby. They buzzed Stilwell and he answered the door. They eventually entered the apartment and determined, including by the use of a PBT, that Stilwell was intoxicated, though he denied having driven his truck. They cuffed him, told him he was being “detained,” and took him to the crash scene, where after about 30 minutes they secured other evidence that Stilwell had driven his truck; they thus arrested him.

State v. Brooke K. Eder, 2021AP485, 2/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officers got a warrant to arrest one Estes. The warrant permitted them to search Eder’s apartment for Estes; the affidavit gave various reasons to believe that Estes would be there. Estes was there, and they arrested him. After they arrested him, though, they searched the basement of the three-unit building. You can’t do that! “A search may not be continued after the objects identified in the search warrant have been located and seized.” State v. Starke, 81 Wis. 2d 399, 414, 260 N.W.2d 739 (1978). This unlawful search turned up contraband that led police to get a new warrant to search Eder’s apartment; Eder seeks to suppress the evidence found in this second search on the ground that it was the fruit of the basement search.

State v. Thor S. Lancial, 2022AP146-CR, 1/5/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Lancial of 10 counts of possession of child pornography. On appeal, he argued that (1) the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that the police seized during their search of his cell phone. The court of appeals reversed on the second point and held that the pornography had to be excluded on remand.

State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 11/23/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants shall not be issued except upon probable cause “supported by Oath or affirmation.” The officer who applied for a warrant to draw Moeser’s blood after an OWI arrest made no oral oath or affirmation before signing the affidavit in support of the warrant or before the judicial officer who approved the warrant. (¶8). But that doesn’t make the warrant invalid, because oath or affirmation is a matter of substance, not form, and it’s clear that the officer manifested an intent to be bound by his statement under circumstances that emphasize the need to tell the truth.

State v. Randaro V. Jones, 2020AP1046, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) 9/7/22, case activity (including briefs)

This is not an OWI case; rather, it’s an appeal from a conviction of recklessly endangering safety by using a firearm while intoxicated. But the blood test that led to this charge came as a result of an arrest for OWI-first, so the issue is whether there was probable cause for that arrest.

State v. Donald A. Whitaker, 2022AP204-CR, District 2, 7/27/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A telephonic warrant may be valid even if the court did not arrange for an electronic or written recording of the officer’s telephone call to be made.

State v. Valiant M. Green, 2022 WI 41, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2019AP2150-CR, case activity (including briefs)

Does an affidavit supporting a warrant for a blood draw state probable cause where it alleges that the defendant “drove or operated a motor vehicle at driveway of [residential address]” and that the defendant “admitted to drinking alcohol at the house?” Writing for the majority, Justice Hagedorn answers “yes.”  Justice A. W. Bradley, the sole dissenter, says “no.”