Electronic eavesdropping, done with the consent of one of the parties, does not violate the U.S. constitution. State ex rel. Arnold v. County Court, 51 W (2d) 434, 187 NW (2d) 354.
The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited to criminal cases. It applies in forfeiture actions arising out of ordinance violations. Milwaukee v. Cohen, 57 W (2d) 38, 203 NW (2d) 633.
An inspection by police of a basement storage room accessible to the public and the observation of evidence found there in open view which was later seized under a search warrant does not amount to an improper invasion of defendant's privacy. Watkins v. State, 59 W (2d) 514 (1973).
Police have a right to lock a car to protect its contents after arresting the driver, but if it is already locked they cannot enter it on pretense of locking it and thus discover contraband. Where the car was borrowed, consent by the lawful user of the car was sufficient to allow a search and any containers found could be opened and examined. Soehle v. State, 60 W (2d) 72, 208 NW (2d) 341.
When officers, armed with a search warrant, knocked on a door, pushed it open when the defendant opened it 2 inches, and put him under restraint before showing the warrant, they acted legally. State v. Meier, 60 W (2d) 452, 210 NW (2d) 685.
The observation of the tools in the car by the officers did not constitute a search and the tools could be seized and were properly admissible into evidence. Anderson v. State, 66 W (2d) 233, 223 NW (2d) 879.
Pertinent to the validity of an investigative stop is whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. Wendricks v. State, 72 W (2d) 717, 242 NW (2d) 187.
Where abused child, an occupant of defendant's house, was accompanied to the house by social workers to recover the child's belongings, and exhibited to the workers the instruments used to inflict punishment, subsequent search warrant was not tainted by an unconstitutional search. State v. Killory, 73 W (2d) 400, 243 NW (2d) 475.
Where evidence seized in illegal search was admitted, no reversible error resulted since other evidence uninfluenced by the inadmissible evidence was sufficient to convict. Kelly v. State, 75 W (2d) 303, 249 NW (2d) 800.
The drawing and testing of blood solely for diagnostic purposes and not government-instigated is not a "search or seizure" even though the testing physician testifies at negligent homicide trial. State v. Jenkins, 80 W (2d) 426, 259 NW (2d) 109.
Stop and frisk was not unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Williamson, 113 W (2d) 389, 335 NW (2d) 814 (1983).
Person who is lawfully in custody for civil offense may be required to participate in lineup for unrelated criminal offense. State v. Wilks, 121 W (2d) 93, 358 NW (2d) 273 (1984).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage once it has been routinely collected by garbage collectors. State v. Stevens, 123 W (2d) 303, 367 NW (2d) 788 (1985).
Unlawful arrest does not deprive court of personal jurisdiction over defendant. State v. Smith, 131 W (2d) 220, 388 NW (2d) 601 (1986).
Under inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence seized under defective search warrant was admissible because later inventory search would have discovered it. State v. Kennedy, 134 W (2d) 308, 396 NW (2d) 765 (Ct. App. 1986).
Reasonableness of investigative stop depends on facts and circumstances present at time of stop. State v. Guzy, 139 W (2d) 663, 407 NW (2d) 548 (1987).
Where officer observed traffic violation but stopped vehicle merely to render assistance, inadvertently discovered criminal evidence was admissible. State v. Baudhuin, 141 W (2d) 642, 416 NW (2d) 60 (1987).
Trial court is permitted to consider suppressed evidence at sentencing where nothing suggests consideration will encourage illegal searches. State v. Rush, 147 W (2d) 225, 432 NW (2d) 688 (Ct. App. 1988).
Escapee does not have legitimate privacy expectation in premises in which escapee is hiding at time of warrantless exigent search. State v. Amos, 153 W (2d) 257, 450 NW (2d) 503 (Ct. App. 1989).
Court specifically limits its holding approving aerial surveillance to use of standard binoculars and cameras equipped with generally available standard and zoom lenses. State v. Lange, 158 W (2d) 609, 463 NW (2d) 390 (Ct. App. 1990).
Discussion of application of informer privilege to communications tending to identify informer and consideration by trial court under 905.10 (3) (c) of such privileged information in determining reasonable suspicion for investigative seizure. State v. Gordon, 159 W (2d) 335, 464 NW 91 (Ct. App. 1990).
Evidence obtained from legal search following two prior illegal searches was not suppressed where the third search was sufficiently attenuated from the prior two. State v. Anderson, 165 W (2d) 441, 477 NW (2d) 277 (1991).
Factors used to determine the extent of a home's curtilage discussed. State v. Moley, 171 W (2d) 207, 490 NW (2d) 764 (Ct. App. 1992).
Bank customers have no protectable privacy interest in bank records relating to accounts under Art. I, s. 11. State v. Swift, 173 W (2d) 870, 496 NW (2d) 713 (Ct. App. 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).
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a porch through which the door to the living area was visible and which was entered through an unlocked screen door. Where an officer came to the defendant's residence for a legitimate purpose, observation of contraband from the porch through a window in the interior door was not a search. State v. Edgeberg, 188 W (2d) 339, 524 NW (2d) 911 (Ct. App. 1994).
The use of a police dog to sniff an automobile parked in a motel parking did not constitute a search. There is no legitimate expectation of privacy in the air space around a car in a motel parking lot. State v. Garcia, 195 W (2d) 68, 535 NW (2d) 124 (Ct. App. 1995).
Although a vehicle had been improperly seized, evidence obtained in a later search of the vehicle under a warrant which was not based on information gathered from the illegal seizure was not subject to suppression. State v. Gaines, 197 W (2d) 102, 539 NW (2d) 723 (Ct. App. 1995).
Arson investigations under s. 165.55 (9) and (10) are subject to search warrant requirements set forth in Michigan v. Tyler, 436 US 499 (1978). Consent to search discussed. 68 Atty. Gen. 225.
When executing a search warrant for private premises, the belongings of a visitor on the premises which are plausible repositories for the objects of the search, except those worn by or in physical possession of persons whose search is not authorized by the warrant, may be searched. State v. Andrews, 201 W (2d) 383, 549 NW (2d) 210 (1996).
In-custody statements stemming from illegal arrest are not admissible merely because Miranda warnings were given. Brown v. Illinois, 422 US 590.
Bank records are not private papers protected by legitimate "expectation of privacy". United States v. Miller, 425 US 435.
Standard procedure inventory of any container impounded by police is reasonable search. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 US 364.
Standards for application of exclusionary rule to live-witness testimony discussed. United States v. Ceccolini, 435 US 268 (1978).
Newspaper office may be searched for evidence of crime even though newspaper is not suspected of crime. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US 547 (1978).
Stopping car for no other reason than to check license and registration was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 US 648 (1979).
In-court identification of accused was not suppressed as fruit of unlawful arrest. United States v. Crews, 445 US 463 (1980).
Illegally seized evidence was properly admitted to impeach defendant's false trial testimony, given in response to proper cross-examination, where evidence did not squarely contradict defendant's testimony on direct examination. United States v. Havens, 446 US 620 (1980).
Arcane concepts of property law do not control ability to claim 4th amendment protections. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 US 98 (1980).
Resemblance to "drug courier profile" was insufficient basis for seizure. Reid v. Georgia, 448 US 438 (1980).
Objective facts and circumstantial evidence justified investigative stop of smuggler's vehicle. United States v. Cortez, 449 US 411 (1981).
Automobile exception does not extend to closed, opaque container located in luggage compartment. Robbins v. California, 453 US 420 (1981).
Police placement of beeper in container of precursor chemical used to manufacture illicit drug and subsequent surveillance of defendant's car by monitoring beeper transmission was not prohibited by fourth amendment. U.S. v. Knotts, 460 US 276 (1983).
Under facts of case, detention and interrogation of airline passenger fitting "drug courier profile" was unconstitutional. Florida v. Royer, 460 US 491 (1983).
Under "independent source" doctrine, evidence discovered during valid search was admissible regardless whether initial entry was illegal. Segura v. U.S. 468 US 796 (1984).
"Good faith" exception to exclusionary rule allowed admission of evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on search warrant, issued by detached and neutral magistrate, later found to be unsupported by probable cause. U.S. v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1984).
"Good faith" exception to exclusionary rule discussed. Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 US 981 (1984).
If "wanted flyer" has been issued on basis of articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that wanted person has committed a crime, other officers may rely on flyer to stop and question person. United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985).
In assessing whether detention is too long to be justified as investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether police diligently pursued means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly. United State v. Sharpe, 470 US 675 (1985).
Proposed surgery under general anesthetic to recover bullet from accused robber's body was unreasonable search. Winston v. Lee, 470 US 753 (1985).
Fingerprints were not admissible where police transported suspect to station house for fingerprinting without consent, probable cause, or prior judicial authorization. Hayes v. Florida, 470 US 811 (1985).
Apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to reasonableness requirement. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 US 1 (1985).
Where officer stopped car for traffic violations and reached into car to move papers obscuring vehicle ID number, discovered evidence was admissible. New York v. Class, 475 US 106 (1986).
Reasonable expectation of privacy wasn't violated when police, acting on anonymous tip, flew over defendant's enclosed backyard and observed marijuana plants. California v. Ciraolo, 476 US 207 (1986).
Defendants have no reasonable privacy interest in trash left on curb for pick-up; therefore, warrantless search is not prohibited under federal law. California v. Greenwood, 486 US 35 (1988).
Use of roadblock to halt defendant's automobile constitutes seizure. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 US 593, 103 LEd 2d 628 (1989).
Impeachment exception to exclusionary rule does not extend to use of illegally obtained evidence to impeach testimony of defense witness other than defendant. James v. Illinois, 493 US 307, 107 LEd 2d 676 (1990).
For a seizure of a person to occur there must either be an application of force, however slight, or where that is absent, submission to an officer's "show of authority". California v. Hodari D., 499 US 279, 113 LEd 690 (1991).
Where officer has no articulable suspicion regarding a person, but requests that person to allow the search of his luggage, there is no seizure of the person if a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officer's request or end the encounter. Florida v. Bostick, 501 US 429, 115 LEd 2d 389 (1991).
Fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to civil matters; illegal eviction of trailer home from private park with deputy sheriffs present to prevent interference was unconstitutional seizure of property. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 US 56, 121 L Ed 2d 450 (1992).
Whether police must "knock and announce" prior to entering a residence in executing a warrant is part of the reasonableness inquiry under the 4th amendment. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 US ___, 131 LEd 2d 976 (1995).
Public school students are granted lesser privacy protections than adults, and student athletes even less. Mandatory drug testing of student athletes did not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. School Dist. 475 v. Acton, 132 LEd 2d 564, 515 US ___ (1995).
The "reasonableness" of the investigative detention: An "ad hoc" constitutional test. Wiseman. 67 MLR 641 (1984).
The exclusionary rule and the 1983-1984 term. Gammon. 68 MLR 1 (1984).
The constitutionality of the canine sniff search: From Katz to dogs. Fitzgerald. 68 MLR 57 (1984).
Analyzing the reasonableness of bodily intrusions. Sarnacki. 68 MLR 130 (1984).
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: The latest example of "new federalism" in the states. 71 MLR 166 (1987).
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Wiseman. WBB Aug. 1986.
Search and seizure—abandonment. 1974 WLR 212.
Terry revisited: Critical update on recent stop-and-frisk developments. 1977 WLR 877.
The future of the exclusionary rule and the development of state constitutional law. 1987 WLR 377.
CONSENT AND STANDING
The fact that consent to the search of a car was given while defendant was in custody does not establish involuntariness. It is not improper for the police to tell defendant that if a search did not produce stolen goods he would be released. Gautreaux v. State, 52 W (2d) 489, 190 NW (2d) 542.
Where police opened a package in possession of an express company without a warrant or the consent of the addressee, persons later arrested in possession of the package, other than the addressee, have no standing to challenge the evidence on the ground of illegal search. Defendants would have to establish a possessory interest in the package at the time of the search. State v. Christel, 61 W (2d) 143, 211 NW (2d) 801.
Defendant qualified as a person aggrieved under the Jones "automatic" standing doctrine to challenge admissibility of evidence taken from his wife, it appearing that he and his wife were in each other's presence in his automobile when arrested for the same crime; a search of her person at that time would have been at a place where defendant had a legitimate right to be; the object of the search, incident to the arrest for robbery could only be for weapons and incriminating evidence against him and his wife; and this situation carried over into a custodial search of the wife which was thereafter conducted at the police station. State v. Mabra, 61 W (2d) 613, 213 NW (2d) 545.
Sons of murdered property owner did not as such have authority to consent to search of premises. Kelly v. State, 75 W (2d) 303, 249 NW (2d) 800.
Person living in tent in yard of house had no authority to grant consent to warrantless search of house. Police officer's observation through a window of cigarette being passed in the house did not constitute probable cause for warrantless search of house for marijuana. "Plain view" doctrine discussed. State v. McGovern, 77 W (2d) 203, 252 NW (2d) 365.
Under facts of case, estranged wife had no authority to consent to warrantless search of property owned jointly with defendant husband. State v. Verhagen, 86 W (2d) 262, 272 NW (2d) 105 (Ct. App. 1978).
Paramour whose access to premises was at whim of lover had no legitimate expectation of privacy necessitating search warrant. State v. Fillyaw, 104 W (2d) 700, 312 NW (2d) 795 (1981).
Impoundment and subsequent warrantless inventory search of car, including locked glove box, were not unconstitutional. Automatic standing discussed. State v. Callaway, 106 W (2d) 503, 317 NW (2d) 428 (1982).
Defendant had no standing to contest legality of search of van because of lack of dominion and control over van. State v. Wisurmerski, 106 W (2d) 722, 317 NW (2d) 484 (1982).
Where defendant's mother admitted police into home to talk to her son, subsequent arrest of son was valid. State v. Rodgers, 119 W (2d) 102, 349 NW (2d) 453 (1984).
Where police reentered home to recreate crime 45 hours after consent to enter, evidence seized was properly suppressed. State v. Douglas, 123 W (2d) 13, 365 NW (2d) 580 (1985).
Defendant searched and arrested after the car he was a passenger in was stopped for a traffic violation could not challenge the lawfulness of the stop. State v. Howard, 176 W (2d) 921, 501 NW (2d) 9 (1993).
A person who borrows a car with the owner's permission has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. State v. Dixon, 177 W (2d) 461, 501 NW (2d) 442 (1993).
In a consent search, voluntariness and freedom from coercion, not fully informed consent, must be shown; language and cultural background are relevant in determining whether the police took advantage in gaining consent. State v. Xiong, 178 W (2d) 525, 504 NW (2d) 428 (Ct. App. 1993).
Passengers had no "legitimate expectation of privacy" in glove box or under seat of car. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 US 128 (1978).
Airport stop of person fitting drug courier profile was reasonable and subsequent search was pursuant to voluntary consent. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 US 544 (1980).
Court may not suppress otherwise admissible evidence on ground that it was seized unlawfully from 3rd party not before court. United States v. Payner, 447 US 727 (1980).
