On Point: 2. Probable cause

State v. Juan A. Casarez, 2008 WI App 166
For Casarez: Adam C. Essling

Issue/Holding:

¶12      Although Casarez concedes the affidavit establishes probable cause that he committed a crime, he asserts that it contains no evidence to establish that a crime was committed at his home, that the gun was ever observed at his home, or that he was ever seen with the gun at his home.

State v. Adrian J. Jackson, 2008 WI App 109
For Jackson: Craig S. Powell; Brian Kinstler

Issue: Whether a warrant established probable cause to search either the entirety of a multi-unit residential building.

Holding:

¶19      The magistrate was told only that the informant saw Jackson with two guns “at the residence of 4124 N. 21st Street” and that a booking record shows Jackson used that address eight months earlier.[9] Nothing in the Affidavit states that Jackson had been observed using both of the two-story duplex units,

State v. Michael Anthony King, 2008 WI App 129
For King: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: Search warrant based on drug transaction occurring 30 days earlier lacked probable cause, ¶32 n. 7:

… From our review of the record, it would appear that probable cause as to the search of his residence was stale. The most recent information directly tied to King was thirty days old.

State v. Dennis M. Gralinski, 2007 WI App 233
For Gralinski: Martin Kohler; Craig Powell, PFR filed 10/5/07

Issue: Whether use of the defendant’s credit card number to purchase online membership to a child pornography site established probable cause for a search warrant of the defendant’s home.

Holding:

 ¶12     Gralinski argues that the special agent’s affidavit did not demonstrate probable cause for searching his home.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: There was an insufficiently established “nexus” between the contraband found in a package and its return address to support a search warrant for that address:

¶31 What Hennen does not describe in his affidavit is critical to our analysis. He never tells the reader that he believes Sloan is,

State v. Dennis M. Gralinski, 2007 WI App 233
For Gralinski: Martin Kohler; Craig Powell, PFR filed 10/5/07

Issue/Holding:

¶26      Gralinski next contends that the warrant was invalid because it was based on stale information such that no inference could be drawn that the items sought in the warrant would be located in his home two and one-half years after the membership to the Regpay website was purchased.

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The good-faith exception is inapplicable when indicia of probable cause are so lacking as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable. This inquiry is distinct from the question of whether the supporting facts are clearly insufficient.

¶33      Under Leon‘s rationale,

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The search warrant was supported by sufficient “indicia of probable cause” to trigger the good-faith exception, including the following: Marquardt had not been seen for two days following his mother’s homicide, raising suspicion about his absence; the victim was covered in a blanket,

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue: Whether Stank was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, relative to the credibility of the informant, in support of his attack on probable cause for the search warrant.

Holding:

¶30      We hold that Stank was not entitled to such a hearing. In Morales v. State, 44 Wis.

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue: Whether a time lag of two months between the informant’s observations and the application for the search warrant rendered the warrant stale.

Holding: Passage of time dose not alone render probable cause stale; the warrant-issuing court may consider various factors, ¶33 (citing State v. Multaler,