On Point

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.

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

Issue: Whether the action of a police officer in opening a letter misaddressed to the officer’s residence from a House of Correction inmate was private and therefore outside fourth amendment scrutiny.

Holding:

¶13   There appears to be no Wisconsin case addressing the issue when an off-duty law enforcement officer acts in a private capacity rather than as a government agent for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

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” 

State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14
For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay

Issue: Whether suppression is a remedy for violation of health care privacy laws (HIPAA; § 146.82).

Holding1:

¶10      Straehler’s argument does not carry for a number of reasons. First, Straehler ignores the fact that HIPAA is limited in its scope and applicability. Investigating authorities, i.e., police officers, are not among the “covered entities” expressly subject to HIPPA.

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.