On Point blog, page 5 of 7
Arrest – Probable Cause – OWI
Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding:
¶36 We conclude that under the circumstances of the present case, the Deputy’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Chimel “Immediate Control” Rule – Inapplicable Where Defendant Removed from Scene
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where the defendant had already been removed from the premises following his arrest, a search of his bedroom couldn’t be justified under a search-incident rationale:
¶51 The State contends that Officer Garcia’s second search of the defendant’s bedroom was justified as a search incident to arrest under the Chimel standard because the bedroom was “within [the defendant’s] immediate presence or control when he barricaded himself in the bedroom and was out of the police officers’
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” Doctrine: Generally
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶32 The protective sweep doctrine applies once law enforcement officers are inside an area, including a home. Once inside an area a law enforcement officer may perform a warrantless “protective sweep,” that is, “a quick and limited search of premises,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Dog Sniff, Wisconsin Constitution
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles:
¶22 We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of § 968.135, Standing to Assert
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether the person whose documents were produced by a bank pursuant to subpoena has standing to seek suppression of the documents.
Holding:
¶24 A person has standing to seek judicial intervention when that person has “a personal stake in the outcome”
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Documents Themselves
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.
Holding:
¶30 The State concedes, and properly so, that contrary to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 no showing of probable cause was made to the circuit court before the circuit court issued the subpoenas.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Statements Made When Confronted with Improperly Subpoenaed Documents
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.
Holding:
¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.
Securities Fraud, § 551.41(2) – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:
¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,
§ 901.03, Plain Error – Generally
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶21 Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object. State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – Prosecutor’s Closing Argument as Violating Confrontation
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶39 Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic alcoholic” who did not acknowledge his problem,