On Point: B. Search warrants

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State v. Thor S. Lancial, 2022AP146-CR, 1/5/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 11/23/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)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.”

City of Waukesha v. Brian John Zimmer, 2012AP530-531, 3/23/22, District 2; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court suppressed the results of Zimmer’s preliminary breath test because Officer Moss demanded, rather than asked, Zimmer to submit to a PBT, contrary to §343.303. It also dismissed Zimmer’s OWI citations. The court of appeals reversed because Moss had probable cause arrest even before he administered the PBT and because the circuit allowed its dislike of the PBT to cloud its judgment.

Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy has posted an essay on a recent federal district court decision regarding the legality of so-called “geofence” warrants, which involve law enforcement getting access to Google’s cell phone location data and using the data to advance a criminal investigation. Google apparently imposes its own sort of “warrant” requirement, and the basic questions in the case, United States v. Chatrie, involve whether the request for the data is a Fourth Amendment search at all,

State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2019AP2184-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision granted 11/18/21 ; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the petition):

Whether the ‘Oath’ requirement under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution require a police officer to swear an oath to the truthfulness of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant to conduct an evidentiary blood draw in a criminal OWI matter?

State v. Valiant M. Green, 2019AP2150, petition for review of a summary order of the court of appeals granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (from the petition):

Did the affidavit in support of that search warrant fail to state probable cause to believe that Mr. Green had committed a crime and thus require suppression of the blood test result?