On Point: B. Search warrants

State v. Benjamin Schneller, 2016AP2474, 6/22/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Benjamin Schneller was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a blood draw, so the police got a warrant and took the blood anyway. He argues on appeal that the warrant only authorized the police to draw his blood, and that a separate warrant was required for them to test it.

State v. Paul L. Linde, 2014AP2445-CR, 8/2/16, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A court commissioner issued a warrant to search Linde’s cabin for evidence of drug manufacturing and for drug paraphernalia. It was based in part on a tip by an anonymous informant, a fact that proved decisive in the court of appeals decision to reverse the circuit court’s denial of Linde’s suppression motion.

State v. Lauren Ann Erstad, 2015AP2675-CR, 7/28/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Convicted of an OWI 2nd, Erstad challenged the search warrant relied upon to collect and test her blood because: (1) the affidavit supporting the warrant contained false information; and (2) the warrant authorized the “collection” of her blood but not the “testing” of it. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.

State v. Bradley L. Kilgore, 2016 WI App 47; case activity (including briefs)

The execution of the search warrant at Kilgore’s home started with a heavily armed officers, including a SWAT team, entering and putting Kilgore down on the floor at gunpoint; but once the home was “cleared” and weapons were secured and the SWAT team left, Kilgore was not in custody for Miranda purposes. Thus, the statements he made to police while they searched his home were admissible despite the lack of a Miranda warning.

State v. Richard J. Slayton, 2015AP1255-CR, 2/3/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity, briefs

Slayton, who was arrested for OWI, challenged a search warrant authorizing his blood draw. The supporting affidavit stated that an officer had reviewed his driving record and noted previous OWI conviction that were “prior countable offenses” under Ch. 346. But it provided no other information about the alleged convictions and thus no way to verify their existence.

Louise Milan v. Billy Bolin, et al., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1207, 7/31/15

Police officers who conducted a SWAT raid on the wrong home weren’t entitled to qualified immunity because of their “insouciance” about another, more probable suspect of the crime being investigated and “the perfunctory nature of their investigation before the search….” (Slip op. at 4).

The 4th Amendment has been described by Conservative HQ as “one of the most important arrows in the quiver against bullying big government.” Because the government doesn’t just search and seize paper–it also goes after your cell phones, your Facebook account, your email (even when stored on Google’s server), your tweets, your DNA (by definition, your family’s DNA) etc.–we want a sturdy Fourth Amendment, right? Justice Scalia thinks so. He’s been called the 4th Amendment’s “

State v. Roberto F. Orozco-Angulo, 2014AP1744-CR, District 2, 4/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The procedure used to obtain a telephonic search warrant for a blood draw following Orozco-Angulo’s arrest for OWI and his refusal to submit to a blood test complied with the requirements of § 968.12(3) and therefore suppression of the evidence was not appropriate.

State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).

City of Sheboygan v. Nathan J. Becker, 2014AP1991, District 2, 2/11/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After police stopped Becker because of erratic driving at 11:30 p.m. on July 4 they observed additional evidence of impairment—glassy eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol. Becker admitted he’d been drinking and turned in a mixed performance on the FSTs. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to ask Becker for a preliminary breath test under § 343.303 and County of Jefferson v.