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).
The plain view exception applies if the following criteria are met: the officer must have prior justification for being present, the evidence must be in plain view and its discovery inadvertent and the seized item and facts known by the officer at the time of seizure must provide probable cause to believe there is a connection between a crime and the evidence. State v. Angiolo, 186 W (2d) 488, NW (2d) 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
Unlike private homes, warrantless inspections of commercial premises are not necessarily unreasonable. A warrantless inspection of a dairy farm under authority of ss. 93.08, 93.15 (2), 97.12 (1) and related administrative rules made without prior notice and without the owner being present was not unconstitutional. Because the administrative rules govern operations, equipment and processes not typically conducted in residential areas, the rules and statutes sufficiently preclude making warrantless searches of residences. Lundeen v. Dept. of Agriculture, 189 W (2d) 255, 525 NW (2d) 758 (1994).
An arrest warrant was not legal authority to enter and search the home of a third-party based on an officer's simple belief that the subject of the warrant might be there. The mere fact that the subject could leave was not an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless search where the warrant was a pick-up warrant for failure to pay a traffic fine. State v. Kiper, 193 W (2d) 69, 532 NW (2d) 698 (1995).
Suppression of evidence is not required when a law enforcement officer obtains evidence outside his or her jurisdiction. Any jurisdictional transgression violates the appropriate jurisdiction's authority not the defendant's rights. State v. Mieritz, 193 W (2d) 571, 534 NW (2d) 632 (Ct. App. 1995).
A warrantless search of a vehicle was constitutional where the defendant fled the vehicle to avoid arrest. The defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. State v. Roberts, 196 W (2d) 445, 538 NW (2d) 825 (Ct. App. 1995).
Whether a pat-down search is reasonable requires the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed. Finding reasonableness requires looking at the totality of the circumstances. The officer's perception of the area as a high-crime area, the time of day and the suspect's nervousness are all factors which may be considered. State v. Morgan, 197 W (2d) 200, 539 NW (2d) 887 (1995).
The automobile exception to the warrant procedure allows the police to search "readily mobile" automobiles without a warrant. The exception does not dispense with the requirement that the police believe the auto contains evidence of a crime before searching. State v. Caban, 202 W (2d) 417, 554 NW (2d) 24 (Ct. App. 1996).
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 44, 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 248, 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 565, 114 LEd 2d 619 (1991).
If during a lawful weapons pat down an officer feels an object whose contours or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of privacy beyond that already authorized. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366, 124 LEd 2d 334 (1993).
