On Point

State v. John Tomlinson, Jr., 2002 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 212, 247 Wis. 2d 682, 635 N.W.2d 201
For Tomlinson: John J. Gray

Issue: Whether the police had consent from a minor to enter the defendant’s home in order to arrest him.

Holding: Warrantless entry of a home to effectuate an arrest requires probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent.

Village of Little Chute v. Todd A. Walitalo, 2002 WI App 211, PFR filed 8/1/02
For Walitalo: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶11. However, the arresting officer, by reading the informing the accused form, simply stated the truth: If Walitalo refused to submit to a chemical test, his driving privileges would be revoked. This statement did not involve any deceit or trickery, but instead accurately informed Walitalo of his precise legal situation. 

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wallace’s consent for a strip search encompassed the more intrusive body cavity search that ensued (Wallace bent over and spread his buttocks).

Holding:

¶29. We have concluded that Wallace voluntarily consented to a strip search, and the parties agree that a visual body cavity search was ultimately conducted.

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

Issue: Whether the police must have reasonable suspicion before seeking consent to enter a residence.

Holding:

¶17. We hold that there is no Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to seeking consent to enter a dwelling. We find support for this holding in federal automobile search cases.

State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Based on evidence that the dog had been trained in drug detection, the police had probable cause to search the automobile once the dog alerted them, including probable cause to search a purse within the car. ¶¶12-15

But, keep in mind this potentially important limitation,

State v. Dennis L. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/10/02
For Daggett: Julie A. Smith

Issue: Whether a warrantless draw of blood, following OWI arrest, is necessarily unreasonable if performed at the jail rather than hospital.

Holding: There is no bright-line rule that a blood draw must be made in a hospital setting to be constitutionally reasonable. Instead, there is “a spectrum of reasonableness”: blood withdrawn by a medical professional in a medical setting is generally reasonable;

State v. Jay D. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Krawjewski: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding:

¶3. … (A) warrantless nonconsensual blood draw from a person arrested on probable cause for a drunk driving offense is constitutional based on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, even if the person offers to submit to a chemical test other than the blood test chosen by law enforcement,

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. We conclude, however, that we need not address whether police may conduct a consensual strip search free of the statutory restrictions. Absent a constitutional violation, a court may not suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute except where the statute ‘specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction.’ 

State v. Brandon L. Wheat, 2002 WI App 153, PFR 6/14/02
For Wheat: Steven A. Koch, Bradley J. Lochowicz

Issue/Holding: The record shows that the search of defendant’s residence was performed by his probation agent; police officers were present only for protection; therefore, this was a probation and not a law enforcement search. ¶23.

UPDATE: What about where the search of the probationer/parolee’s home is conducted by the police alone?

State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶6. The Supreme Court first addressed whether the Fourth Amendment applies to canine sniffs in United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). … The Court then concluded “that the particular course of investigation that the agents intended to pursue here-exposure of respondent’s luggage,