Discussion of "staleness" as relates to information supporting search warrant. State v. Ehnert, 160 W (2d) 464, 466 NW (2d) 237 (Ct. App. 1991).
Warrant for seizure of film authorized seizure, removal and development of undeveloped film. State v. Petrone, 161 W (2d) 530, 468 NW (2d) 676 (1991).
Knowledge that dealer operating ongoing drug business was armed in his residence satisfied requirements for "no knock" search; reasonable belief that weapon will be used need not be shown. State v. Watkinson, 161 W (2d) 750, 468 NW (2d) 763 (Ct. App. 1991), State v. Williams, 168 W (2d) 970, 485 NW(2d) 42 (1992).
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).
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).
Severability rule under Noll applies where description of premises to be searched is over broad. State v. Marten, 165 W (2d) 70, 477 NW (2d) 304 (Ct. App. 1991).
If old information contributes to an inference that probable cause exists at the time of the application for a warrant, its age is no taint. State v. Moley, 171 W (2d) 207, 490 NW (2d) 764 (Ct. App. 1992).
Police serving a warrant are not required to ring a doorbell before forcing entry. State v. Greene, 172 W (2d) 43, 491 NW (2d) 181 (Ct. App. 1992).
Use of ruse to gain entry in execution of warrant where "no-knock" was not authorized does not violate announcement rule; special authorization is not required for the use of a ruse. State v. Moss, 172 W (2d) 110, 492 NW (2d) 627 (1992).
Discussion of period police must wait after announcing presence before making forcible entry to execute search warrant where "no knock" is not authorized. State v. Stevens, 173 W (2d) 290, 496 NW (2d) 201 (Ct. App. 1992).
Failure to comply with announcement rule was allowable where officers reasonably believed further announcement was futile. State v. Berry, 174 W (2d) 28, 496 NW (2d) 746 (Ct. App. 1993).
Compliance with announcement rule must be determined at time of execution: while advance request for "no-knock" authority is preferable if police at time of execution have grounds, failure to seek authorization is not fatal. State v. Kerr, 174 W (2d) 55, 496 NW (2d) 742 (Ct. App. 1993).
The incorrect identification of a building's address in the warrant did not render the resulting search unreasonable when the search made was of the building identified by the informant which was otherwise correctly identified in the warrant. State v. Nicholson, 174 W (2d) 542, 497 NW (2d) 791 (Ct. App. 1993).
Federal magistrate's decision on fourth amendment suppression hearing is not binding on state trial court where the state was not a party nor in privity with a party to the federal action and the federal case did not review errors in the proceeding. State v. Mechtel, 176 W (2d) 87, 499 NW (2d) 662 (1993).
The use of an infrared sensing device to detect heat emanating from a residence does not constitute a search within the meaning of the proscription of unlawful searches. State v. McKee, 181 W (2d) 354, 510 NW (2d) 807 (Ct. App. 1993).
Where a warrant is issued to search a residence for evidence of drug dealing, exigent circumstances exist to allow police to execute a "no knock" search. State v. Stevens, 181 W (2d) 410, 511 NW (2d) 591 (1994).
An investigatory stop of an automobile based solely on the fact that the vehicle bore "license applied for" plates, and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom, was justified by reasonable suspicion. State v. Griffin, 183 W (2d) 327, 515 NW (2d) 535 (Ct. App. 1994).
For a violation of the requirement that a warrant be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, actual bias and not the appearance of bias must be shown. State v. McBride, 187 W (2d) 408, 523 NW (2d) 106 (Ct. App. 1994).
An "anticipatory search warrant", a warrant issued before the necessary events have occurred which will allow a constitutional search, is subject to the same probable cause determination as a conventional search warrant. State v. Falbo, 190 W (2d) 328, 526 NW (2d) 814 (Ct. App. 1994).
That a person was a passenger in a vehicle in which cocaine was found in the trunk was not of itself sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest the person for being a part of a conspiracy to possess or sell the cocaine. State v. Riddle, 192 W (2d) 470, 531 NW (2d) 408 (Ct. App. 1995).
A search warrant authorizing the search of certain premises and "all occupants" was not unconstitutional where there was probable cause to believe that persons on the premises were engaged in illegal activities. State v. Hayes, 196 W (2d) 753, 540 NW (2d) 1 (Ct. App. 1995).
Exigent circumstances are always present in the execution of search warrants involving felonious drug delivery. In such cases police are not required to adhere to the rule of announcement when executing such a warrant. State v. Richards, 201 W (2d) 839, 569 NW (2d) 218 (1996).
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).
Evidence seized in reliance on a police record incorrectly indicating an outstanding arrest warrant was not subject to suppression where the error was made by court clerk personnel. Arizona v. Evans, 514 US ___, 131 LEd 2d 34 (1994).
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).
Investigatory stop-and-frisk for sole purpose of discovering suspect's identity was lawful under facts of case. 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).
Evidentiary search of person not named in search warrant but present during search of residence reasonably suspected of being drug house, held to be reasonable. 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).
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).
Exception allowing warrantless search of automobiles is not extended to camper trailer unhitched from a towing vehicle. State v. Durbin, 170 W (2d) 475, 489 NW (2d) 655 (Ct. App. 1992).
Warrantless search of commercial premises without owner's consent where licensing ordinance provided that the licensed premises "shall be open to inspection at any time" was illegal. State v. Schwegler, 170 W (2d) 487, 490 NW (2d) 292 (Ct. App. 1992).
Frisk of person not named in search warrant during execution of warrant was reasonable where occupants of the residence were very likely to be involved in drug trafficking; drugs felt in a pocket during the frisk were lawfully seized where the officer had probable cause to believe there was a connection between what was felt and criminal activity. State v. Guy, 172 W (2d) 86, 492 NW (2d) 311 (1992).
Dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw when made at an officer's direction following an arrest for OWI. State v. Bohling, 173 W (2d) 529, 494 NW (2d) 399 (1993).
Warrantless protective sweep of residence incident to arrest requires police to have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the residence harbors an individual posing a danger to the officers. State v. Kruse, 175 W (2d) 89, 499 NW (2d) 185 (Ct. App. 1993).
Six factor analysis for use in making determination of reasonableness of investigatory stop discussed. State v. King, 175 W (2d) 146, NW (2d) (Ct. App. 1993).
Rule that a judicial determination of probable cause to support a warrantless arrest must be made within 48 hours applies to Wisconsin; failure to comply did not require suppression of evidence not obtained because of the delay where probable cause for arrest was present. State v. Koch, 175 W (2d) 684, 499 NW (2d) 153 (1993).
Where a school adopts a written policy retaining ownership and possessory control of lockers, students have no reasonable privacy expectation in those lockers. Interest of Isiah B. 176 W (2d) 639, 500 NW (2d) 637 (1993).
Officer's step into threshold of defendant's home constituted an entry subject to constitutional protection. State v. Johnson, 177 W (2d) 224, 501 NW (2d) 876 (Ct. App. 1993).
A defendant under lawful arrest has a diminished privacy interest in personal property inventoried by jail authorities and a warrantless search of the property where there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence is valid. State v. Jones, 181 W (2d) 194, 510 NW (2d) 784 (Ct. App. 1993). See also State v. Betterly, 183 W (2d) 165, 515 NW (2d) 911 (Ct. App. 1994).
Warrantless entry of uniformed officers to make arrests after undercover agents gained permissive entrance to premises was justified under the consent exception and no exigent circumstances were required. State v. Johnston, 184 W (2d) 794, 518 NW (2d) 759 (1994).
Non-parolee living with parolee has a legitimate expectation of privacy in shared living quarters, but a warrantless search authorized as a condition of parole can reasonably extend to all areas in which the parolee and non-parolee enjoy common authority. Evidence found in such a search may be used against the non-parolee. State v. West, 185 W (2d) 68, 517 NW (2d) 482 (1994).
Failure to conduct a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and not grounds for dismissal with prejudice or voiding of a subsequent conviction unless the delay prejudiced the defendant;'s right to present a defense. State v. Golden, 185 W (2d) 763, 519 NW (2d) 659 (Ct. App. 1994).
Evidence obtained in consensual search of defendant's car where the consent was given during an illegal search was admissible as the evidence was not "come at" by information learned in the interrogation. State v. Goetsch, 186 W (2d) 1, 519 NW (2d) 634 (Ct. App. 1994).
A determination that an area was within a defendant's immediate control at the time of arrest does not give police authority to generally search the premises; only a limited search is justified. State v. Angiolo, 186 W (2d) 488, NW (2d) 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
