Informant need not have a "track record" established with police if totality of the circumstances indicate probable cause for search exists. State v. Hanson, 163 W (2d) 420, 471 NW (2d) 301 (Ct. App. 1991).
Use of ruse to gain entry in execution of warrant did not violate announcement rule. State v. Moss, 166 W (2d) 733, 480 NW (2d) 526 (Ct. App. 1992).
Anonymous telephone tip that specified vehicle was driven by unlicensed person did not create articulable and reasonable suspicion of illegality justifying investigatory stop of auto and driver. 68 Atty. Gen. 347.
Where defendant makes substantial preliminary showing that affiant's false statement, knowingly or recklessly made, was basis of probable cause finding in search warrant affidavit, hearing must be held. Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978).
"Open-ended" search warrant was unconstitutional. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 US 319 (1979).
Warrant to search premises for contraband implicitly carries with it limited authority to detain occupants during search. Michigan v. Summers, 452 US 692 (1981).
Where officer, after stopping defendant's car at routine driver's license checkpoint, saw tied-off party balloon in plain sight, officer had probable cause to believe balloon contained illicit substance. Hence, warrantless seizure of balloon was legal. Texas v. Brown, 460 US 730 (1983).
Court abandons "two-pronged" test of Aguilar and Spinelli and replaces it with "totality of the circumstances" approach in finding probable cause based on informer's tips. Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213 (1983).
Under new "totality of circumstances" test, informant's tip met probable cause standards. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 US 727 (1984).
Probable cause is required to invoke plain view doctrine. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 US 321 (1987).
WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE
An officer who is making an arrest for a traffic violation, after defendant opens his door, can arrest for a narcotics violation based on narcotics in plain sight in the room. Schill v. State, 50 W (2d) 473, 184 NW (2d) 858.
Police officers properly in an apartment where drugs were discovered may pat down the pockets of a stranger who walks in and may seize a large, hard object felt, in order to protect themselves. State v. Chambers, 55 W (2d) 289, 198 NW (2d) 377.
After stopping defendant properly and frisking his person, which disclosed several cartridges, the police were justified in looking under the car seat and in the glove compartment for a gun. State v. Williamson, 58 W (2d) 514, 206 NW (2d) 613.
When a valid arrest is made without a warrant, the officer may conduct a limited search of the premises. Leroux v. State, 58 W (2d) 671, 207 NW (2d) 589.
Where an officer, mistakenly believing in good faith that occupants of a car had committed a crime, stops the car and arrests the occupants, the arrest is illegal, but a shotgun in plain sight on the back seat may be seized and used in evidence. State v. Taylor, 60 W (2d) 506, 210 NW (2d) 873.
When officers stopped a car containing 3 men meeting the description of robbery suspects within 7 minutes after the robbery and found a gun on one, they could properly search the car for other guns and money. State v. Russell, 60 W (2d) 712, 211 NW (2d) 637.
Given a valid arrest, a search is not limited to weapons or evidence of a crime, nor need it be directed to or related to the purpose of the arrest, because one who has contraband or evidence of crime on him travels at his own risk when he is validly arrested for any reason, hence the reasonableness of a search incident thereto no longer depends on the purpose of the search in relation to the object of the arrest. State v. Mabra, 61 W (2d) 613, 213 NW (2d) 545.
The evidence of the finding of the body in the open fields approximately 450 feet from the house was properly admitted into evidence. Conrad v. State, 63 W (2d) 616, 218 NW (2d) 252.
Seizure by police of a large quantity of marijuana from defendant's 155-acre farm did not contravene their 4th amendment rights. State v. Gedko, 63 W (2d) 644, 218 NW (2d) 249.
The search of defendant's wallet leading to discovery of the newspaper article was proper in order to find weapons which might be secreted therein, such as razor blades, or evidence of possession of hashish, for which he had also been arrested. State v. Mordeszewski, 68 W (2d) 649, 229 NW (2d) 642.
The seizure by police officers of a box of cartridges from under the edge of a couch on which defendant was resting at the time of his arrest was proper under the plain-view doctrine, since if police have a prior justification to be present in a position to see an object in plain view and its discovery is inadvertent, the object may be seized, and the use of a flashlight by one of the officers did not defeat the inadvertence requirement. Sanders v. State, 69 W (2d) 242, 230 NW (2d) 845.
Totality of circumstances justified search for concealed weapon. Penister v. State, 74 W (2d) 94, 246 NW (2d) 115.
Doctrine of exigency is founded upon actions of police which are considered reasonable; element of reasonableness is supplied by compelling need to assist victim or apprehend those responsible, not need to secure evidence. West v. State, 74 W (2d) 390, 246 NW (2d) 675.
Warrantless search by probation officer was constitutionally permissible where probable cause existed for officer's attempt to determine whether probationer has violated probation. State v. Tarrell, 74 W (2d) 647, 247 NW (2d) 696.
Plain view doctrine does not apply if observation is not made inadvertently or if officer does not have right to be in place from which observation is made. State v. Monahan, 76 W (2d) 387, 251 NW (2d) 421.
Warrantless searches of automobiles discussed. Thompson v. State, 83 W (2d) 134, 265 NW (2d) 467 (1978).
Criteria used as justification for warrantless search of student by teacher discussed. Interest of L.L. v. Washington County Cir. Ct. 90 W (2d) 585, 280 NW (2d) 343 (Ct. App. 1979).
Warrantless entry under emergency rule justified subsequent entry which did not expand scope or nature of original entry. La Fournier v. State, 91 W (2d) 61, 280 NW (2d) 746 (1979).
See note to 968.25, citing State v. Flynn, 92 W (2d) 427, 285 NW (2d) 710 (1979).
Furnishing police with bank records of depositor who has victimized bank was not unlawful search and seizure. State v. Gilbertson, 95 W (2d) 102, 288 NW (2d) 877 (Ct. App. 1980).
Evidence obtained during mistaken arrest is admissible as long as arresting officer acts in good faith and has reasonable articulable grounds to believe that the suspect is the intended arrestee. State v. Lee, 97 W (2d) 679, 294 NW (2d) 547 (Ct. App. 1980).
Warrantless entry into defendant's home was validated by emergency doctrine where officer reasonably believed lives were threatened. State v. Kraimer, 99 W (2d) 306, 298 NW (2d) 568 (1980).
Warrantless search of fisherman's truck by state conservation wardens under 29.33 (6) was presumptively reasonable. State v. Erickson, 101 W (2d) 224, 303 NW (2d) 850 (Ct. App. 1981).
Detained suspect's inadvertent exposure of contraband was not unreasonable search. State v. Goebel, 103 W (2d) 203, 307 NW (2d) 915 (1981).
Search of entire building on morning after localized fire was within scope of fire scene exception to search warrant requirement. State v. Monosso, 103 W (2d) 368, 308 NW (2d) 891 (Ct. App. 1981).
Warrantless entry into home was validated by emergency doctrine where official's reasonable actions were motivated solely by perceived need to render immediate aid or assistance, not by need or desire to obtain evidence. State v. Boggess, 115 W (2d) 443, 340 NW (2d) 516 (1983).
Warrantless noninventory search of automobile incident to arrest was permissible under Belton rule. State v. Fry, 131 W (2d) 153, 388 NW (2d) 565 (1986).
Police having probable cause to believe vehicle contains criminal evidence may search vehicle without warrant or exigent circumstances. State v. Tompkins, 144 W (2d) 116, 423 NW (2d) 823 (1988).
Under exigent circumstances of fire control, fire fighter may contact police to inform them of presence of illegal possessions in plain view; subsequent warrantless search and seizure is proper. State v. Gonzalez, 147 W (2d) 165, 432 NW (2d) 651 (Ct. App. 1988).
Reasonable police inventory search is exception to warrant requirement; issue is whether inventory was pretext for investigative search. State v. Axelson, 149 W (2d) 339, 441 NW (2d) 259 (Ct. App. 1989).
When effecting lawful custodial arrest of individual in his home, law enforcement may conduct search of closed areas within immediate area of arrestee even though search imposes infringement on privacy interest. State v. Murdock, 155 W (2d) 217, 455 NW (2d) 618 (1990).
Under circumstances presented, officer properly conducted inventory search resulting in discovery of contraband of purse left in police car because search was conducted pursuant to proper department policy. State v. Weide, 155 W (2d) 537, 455 NW (2d) 899 (1990).
Police corroboration of innocent details of anonymous tip may give rise to reasonable suspicion to make a stop under totality of circumstances; suspect's actions need not be inherently suspicious in and of themselves. State v. Richardson, 156 W (2d) 128, 456 NW (2d) 830 (1990).
Validity of "Good Samaritan" stop or entry requires that officer had motive only to assist and not to search for evidence, had reasonable belief that defendant needed help, and once entry is made absent probable cause, that objective evidence exists giving rise to investigation of criminal behavior. State v. Dunn, 158 W (2d) 138, 462 NW (2d) 538 (Ct. App. 1990).
Reasonableness of search does not come into question unless person had reasonable privacy expectation; is no reasonable expectation of privacy in TDD communications made from dispatch area of sheriff's department. State v. Rewolinski, 159 W (2d) 1, 464 NW (2d) 401 (1990).
Parolee's liberty is conditional; judicially issued warrant is not required for seizure of alleged parole violator in his home. State v. Pittman, 159 W (2d) 764, 465 NW (2d) 245 (Ct. App. 1990).
See note to this section, PROBABLE CAUSE AND WARRANTS, citing State v. Jeter, 160 W (2d) 333, 466 NW (2d) 211 (Ct. App. 1991).
Warrantless search of apartment for evidence of occupancy where police reasonably believed tenant had vacated and occupants were not legitimately on premises was not unreasonable; defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment or in property kept there. State v. Whitrock, 161 W (2d) 960, 468 NW (2d) 696 (1991).
Blood may be drawn in search incident to arrest if police have reasonable suspicion that blood contains evidence of crime. State v. Seibel, 163 W (2d) 164, 471 NW (2d) 226 (1991).
Where it is asserted that search was incident to arrest, objective test which assesses totality of circumstances shall be applied to determine whether arrest occurred; previous subjective test is abrogated. Where arrest has not occurred there can be no full warrantless search. State v. Swanson, 164 W (2d) 437, 475 NW (2d) 148 (1991).
Search of premises in execution of search warrant did not authorize search of person not named in the warrant where was no reasonable belief the person was armed and dangerous. State v. Guy, 165 W (2d) 333, 477 NW (2d) 349 (Ct. App. 1991).
When a convicted defendant is awaiting sentencing for a drug related offense where probation is a sentencing option, a judge may order, without warrant, probable cause or individualized suspicion, that the defendant submit to urinalysis to determine if drugs are present. State v. Guzman, 166 W (2d) 577, 480 NW (2d) 446 (1992).
Drawing of blood sample without consent is reasonable when (1) drawn incident to arrest, (2) there is a clear indication the desired evidence will be found and (3) exigent circumstances exist; rapid dissipation of blood alcohol is an exigent circumstance. Force allowable in obtaining sample discussed. State v. Krause, 168 W (2d) 578, 484 NW (2d) 347 (Ct. App. 1992).
Warrantless, non-exigent, felony arrest in public was constitutional despite opportunity to obtain warrant. United States v. Watson, 423 US 411.
Where driver was stopped because of expired license plates, police order to get out of car was reasonable and subsequent "pat down" based on observed bulge under driver's jacket resulted in legal seizure of unlicensed revolver. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977).
Warrantless installation of pen register, which recorded telephone numbers called but not contents of calls, did not violate Fourth Amendment. Smith v. Maryland, 442 US 735 (1979).
Warrantless search of suitcase in trunk of taxi was unconstitutional. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753 (1979).
Police may not make warrantless and nonconsensual entry into suspect's home in order to make routine felony arrest. Payton v. New York, 445 US 573 (1980).
Fact that police had lawful possession of pornographic film boxes did not give them authority to search their contents. Walter v. United States, 447 US 649 (1980).
Search of jacket lying in passenger compartment of car was incident to lawful custodial arrest which justified infringement of any privacy interest arrestee may have. New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981).
Officer who accompanied arrested person to residence to obtain identification properly seized contraband in plain view. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 US 1 (1982).
Officers who have legitimately stopped automobile and who have probable cause to believe contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct warrantless search of vehicle as thorough as could be authorized by warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 US 798 (1982).
Where damaged shipping package was examined by company employes who discovered white powder, subsequent warrantless field test by police was constitutional. U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 US 109 (1984).
"Open fields" doctrine discussed. Oliver v. U.S. 466 US 170 (1984).
Warrantless, nighttime entry of defendant's home for arrest for civil, nonjailable traffic offense was not justified under "hot pursuit" doctrine or preservation of evidence doctrine. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 US 740 (1984).
School officials need not obtain warrant before searching student; legality of search depends simply on reasonableness, under all circumstances, of search. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 US 325 (1985).
Where officers were entitled to seize packages in vehicle and could have searched them immediately without warrant, warrantless search of packages 3 days later was reasonable. United States v. Johns, 469 US 478 (1985).
Vehicle exception for warrantless search applies to motor homes. California v. Carney, 471 US 386 (1985).
Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies where officer reasonably relies upon statute allowing warrantless administrative search which was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Illinois v. Krull, 480 US 340 (1987).
Protective sweep of residence in conjunction with arrest is permissible if law enforcement reasonably believes that area harbors individual posing danger to officers or others. Maryland v. Buie, 494 US 325, 108 LEd 2d 276 (1990).
"Inadvertence" is not necessary condition to "plain view" seizure. Horton v. California, 496 US 128, 110 LEd 2d 112 (1990).
Determination of probable cause made within 48 hours of warrantless arrest generally meets promptness requirement; if hearing is held more than 48 hours following arrest the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate emergency or extraordinary circumstances. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 US , 114 LEd 2d 49 (1991).
Officer's opening of closed bag found on floor of suspect's car during search of car made with suspect's consent was not unreasonable. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 US , 114 LEd 2d 297 (1991).
There shall be one rule governing all automobile searches; the police may search the car and all containers within it without a warrant where they have probable cause to believe contain contraband or evidence is contained. California v. Acevedo, 500 US , 114 LEd 2d 619 (1991).
I,12 Attainder; ex post facto; contracts. Section 12. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
45.37 (9), Stats. 1963, constituted a contract as to the property an applicant for admission to the Grand Army Home had to surrender, and to apply a later amendment would be unconstitutional. Estate of Nottingham, 46 W (2d) 580, 175 NW (2d) 640.
Although the obligation of contract is not an absolute right but one that may yield to the compelling interest of the public, the public purpose served by a law mandating rent reductions due to property tax relief is not so vital so as to permit such impairment of contract. State ex rel. Bldg. Owners v. Adamany, 64 W (2d) 280, 219 NW (2d) 274.
Retroactive application of 57.06, 1987 stats. [now 304.06] as amended in 1973, increasing the period to be served by petitioners, state prison inmates, from 2 to 5 years before they are eligible for parole consideration, imposes an additional penalty and violates the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. State ex rel. Mueller v. Powers, 64 W (2d) 643, 221 NW (2d) 692.
Challenge by the creditor to the constitutionality of the entire Wisconsin Consumer Act, by reason of alleged balance or imbalance of remedies available respectively to creditor and debtor, cannot be considered on the factual situation presented. Smith v. Burns, 65 W (2d) 638, 223 NW (2d) 562.
The legislative preclusion against the State Medical Society's divesting itself of control of ch. 148, disability plans does not constitute any impairment of the Society's charter because: (1) The grant of ch. 148 powers is permissive and voluntarily exercised by the Society; (2) the ch. 148 grant is in the nature of a franchise rather than a contract and cannot be viewed as unalterable or it would constitute a delegation of inalienable legislative power; and (3) the constitutional interdiction against statutes impairing contracts does not prevent the state from exercising its police powers for the common good. State Medical Society v. Comm. of Insurance, 70 W (2d) 144, 233 NW (2d) 470.
Where probation statute was amended after crime was committed but before accused pled guilty and was placed on probation, application of amended statute to probation revocation proceedings offended ex post facto clause. State v. White, 97 W (2d) 517, 294 NW (2d) 36 (Ct. App. 1979).
Challenge to legislation must prove 1) legislation impairs existing contractual relationship; 2) impairment is substantial; and 3) if substantial, impairment is not justified by purpose of legislation. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. La Follette, 108 W (2d) 637, 323 NW (2d) 173 (Ct. App. 1982).
See note to 846.103, citing Burke v. E.L.C. Investors, Inc. 110 W (2d) 406, 329 NW (2d) 275 (Ct. App. 1982).
Retroactive application of 102.43 (7), 1979 stats., doesn't violate contract clause or due process clause of constitution. Chappy v. LIRC, 136 W (2d) 172, 401 NW (2d) 568 (1987).
Retroactive application of 46.03 (22) doesn't violate this section. Overlook Farms v. Alternative Living, 143 W (2d) 485, 422 NW (2d) 131 (Ct. App. 1988).
Constitutionality of rent control discussed. 62 Atty. Gen. 276.
I,13 Private property for public use. Section 13. The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor.
A dismissal of an appeal for lack of prosecution in a condemnation action does not violate condemnee's right to just compensation. Taylor v. State Highway Comm. 45 W (2d) 490, 173 NW (2d) 707.
