On Point

State v. Jeffrey Stout, 2002 WI App 41, PFR filed 2/21/02
For Stout: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14. … (T)he United States Supreme Court has never held that a warrantless entry into a private residence may be justified by a Terry investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion provided by an informant’s tip. To the contrary, the Supreme Court extended the Terry doctrine’s reasonable suspicion standard within the confines of a dwelling only when lawful entry had already been obtained.

State v. Harold C. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152
For Mikkelson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state waived an appellate argument in opposition to suppression by not raising it at the suppression hearing.

Holding:

¶14 “The waiver rule serves several important objectives. Raising issues at the [circuit] court level allows the …. court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first place,

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Failure of the warrant application to include dismissal of prior criminal charge listed against defendant didn’t mislead judge, who would have inferred that had the charge resulted in conviction that result would have been asserted.

State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02
For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray

Issue: Whether the search warrant was based on intentionally or recklessly false averments, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

Holding:

¶23. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the issuing court commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.

State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray

Issue: Whether evidence illegally obtained through warrantless use of a thermal imaging device, in reliance on then-valid Wisconsin appellate court decision subsequently invalidated by a Supreme Court decision, must be suppressed.

Holding: Warrantless use of a thermal imaging device against Loranger must now clearly be regarded as a fourth amendment violation. 

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding:

¶13. There are no longer specific prerequisites to a finding of confidential informant reliability. Rather, the current test simply requires courts to “consider all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information.” 

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Although the age of the information in the warrant application – six months – gives pause, it isn’t sufficiently stale to defeat probable cause for drug trafficking.

¶22                        Jones argues that the key information in the warrant affidavit—the informant’s allegations—was over six months old.  

State v. Garry C. Eskridge, 2002 WI App 158, PFR filed 6/14/02
For Eskridge: Gregory Bates

Issue: Whether a tenant had an expectation of privacy in the basement area of a multiple unit apartment building.

Holding: A tenant’s expectation of privacy in the common areas of multiple unit buildings is decided on a case by case basis. ¶10. Because the state offered credible testimony —

State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39
For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs

Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.

Holding:

¶8. Although the term ‘forfeiture’ does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has recognized that the result of refusing to return a weapon to a person who committed a crime using the weapon is a forfeiture.

State v. Vernell T. Williams, 2002 WI App 306
For Williams: Michael A. Haakenson
Issue: Whether a stop whose purpose (to investigate possible connection to an earlier crime) had dissipated was unlawfully prolonged by a checking the driver’s license.

Holding:

¶19. In State v. Ellenbecker, 159 Wis. 2d 91, 464 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App. 1990), we held that a request for a driver’s license from a driver whose vehicle was disabled,