On Point

State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa

Issue:Whether entry into a closet, after defendant was arrested in his residence, was justified under the “protective sweep” doctrine.

Holding: Under Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), the police may conduct a “protective sweep” of premises, incident arrest, of spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest,

State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01
For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test.

Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established by State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), 

State v. Michael M. Longcore II, 2001 WI App 15, on appeal after remand of State v. Longcore I, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether replacing a vehicle’s glass window with a plastic sheet violates the safety glass statute, § 347.43(1), so as to provide probable cause to arrest.

State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich

Issue: Whether a person voluntarily abandons property when throwing it to the ground during an illegal pat-down.

Holding:

¶24. Our own research has uncovered cases that are fatal to the district attorney’s contention. In Lawrence v. Henderson, 478 F. 2d 705, 708 (5th Cir. 1973), the court held that drug evidence found in a police car after an unlawful arrest could not have been voluntarily abandoned because the ‘abandonment’

State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether consent to search was valid notwithstanding illegal police activity.

Holding:

¶13. The three factors that help to determine whether the taint of earlier illegal police activity has been attenuated by the time a consent to search is granted are: “(1) the temporal proximity of the official misconduct and seizure of evidence;

State v. David L. Munroe, 2001 WI App 104
For Munroe: Peter Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Munroe’s acquiescence, under false pretenses, to police entry of his motel room vitiated any consent for their subsequent search of that room, where Munroe refused their initial request to search.

Holding:

¶11 The officers entered Munroe’s room for, ostensibly, one purpose: to check his identification.

State v. Jennifer K. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 621 N.W.2d 891, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals.
For Matejka: James B. Connell

Issue: “(W)hether, under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, a driver’s consent to a police officer’s search of a vehicle extends to a passenger’s jacket left in the vehicle at the time of the search.”

Holding:

¶35 Here,

State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126
For defendants: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether an apartment owner’s consent to search his apartment, given in response to police threat to obtain a search warrant even though no probable cause existed, was involuntary.

Holding::

¶54 The police may not threaten to obtain a search warrant when there are no grounds for a valid warrant. 

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt , 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the automobile exception allowed the warrantless search of defendant’s car.

Holding: A warrantless search of a vehicle requires two showings: probable cause; and “ready” mobility of vehicle. ¶¶31-32. Because the defendant did not contest probable cause until his reply brief, that issue is taken as conceded.

State v. Paul J. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275
For VanLaarhoven: Michele Anne Tjader

Issue: Whether a blood sample, properly obtained under the Implied Consent law, may be analyzed without a warrant.

Holding: The Implied Consent law requires that all who apply for a driver’s license consent not only to provide a sample, but also a chemical analysis of the sample. ¶¶7-8. More broadly: “the examination of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant requirement or an exception to the warrant requirement is an essential part of the seizure and does not require a judicially authorized warrant.”