On Point

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2008 WI App 161, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 8
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶26      While a person is not necessarily under arrest just because the officers display their weapons and place the individual in a squad car, those facts can support a determination that an arrest occurred. In this case,

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2008 WI App 161, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 8
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:  Continued possession of Carroll’s cell phone justified, though Carroll not in custody. Expectation of privacy in cell phone analogous to that attending “closed container” such as luggage, as to which detention of container must be supported by probable cause to believe it contains evidence of crime and by exigent circumstances,

State v. Eric Dwayne Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, PFR filed 12/12/08
For Rogers: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Although warrantless entry of and remaining in a home while a warrant was prepared was illegal, the warrant wasn’t based on any information turned up by this illegality and evidence seized during its execution was therefore admissible:

¶21      Still, “evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is ‘so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.’” Segura v.

State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶20 n. 4:

… While Pickering could consent to a search of the vehicle, he could not consent to a search of his passenger. See State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 241 Wis.  2d 52,

State v. Eric Dwayne Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, PFR filed 12/12/08
For Rogers: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of Rogers’ home, following seizure of contraband from his car, was unlawful:

¶19      In this case, the police entered Rogers’ residence after seizing contraband from his car and person and then seeing Rogers’ brother and others at the scene talking on their phones.

State v. Jacob B. Jones, 2008 WI App 154, PFR filed 10/24/08
For Jones: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:  Warrantless search of bedroom upheld as probation/parole search under “special needs” doctrine, notwithstanding presence of police who were conducting a concurrent investigation:

¶15      We conclude, based on the court’s factual findings, that the search of Jones’s room was a probationary search and not a police search.

State v. Jacob B. Jones, 2008 WI App 154, PFR filed 10/24/08
For Jones: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding: Entry of a probationer’s residence to effectuate a probation/parole search was reasonable:

¶22      We reject Jones’s argument. As the circuit court found, Trimble was told by Detective Pertzborn that Jones was sexually involved with a fourteen-year-old girl and that Pertzborn had knowledge of nude photographs of Jones and love notes from Jones to the girl.

State v. Jacob B. Jones, 2008 WI App 154, PFR filed 10/24/08
For Jones: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:

¶24      Wisconsin Admin. Code § DOC 328.21(3)(f) (Dec. 2006) provides that probation or parole agents “may not forcibly enter a locked premises to search it if the client whose living quarters or property it is is not present.” Jones argues that the search of his bedroom was not reasonable because use of a locksmith constituted a forced entry in violation of § DOC 328.21(3)(f),

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, 

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding: The exclusionary rule applies only to government action, not private searches, ¶12. If the State asserts that the action was private in nature the burden shifts to the defendant to prove by governmental involvement, preponderance of evidence, id.