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).
Defendants charged with crimes of possession may only claim benefits of exclusionary rule if their own 4th amendment rights have in fact been violated. United States v. Salvucci, 448 US 83 (1980).
Where police entered 3rd party's house to execute arrest warrant, evidence discovered during search was inadmissible. Steagald v. United States, 451 US 204 (1981).
Prisoner has no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in cell. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 US 517 (1984).
State need not prove that defendant consenting to search knew of right to withhold consent. Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 US 1 (1984).
Warrantless entry to premises is permitted under fourth amendment where entry is based upon third party consent and where officers reasonably believed third party to possess authority to consent. Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 US 177, 111 LEd 2d 148 (1990).
A defendant can urge suppression of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional protections only if that defendant's rights were violated. U.S. v. Padilla, 508 US 954, 123 LEd 2d 635 (1993).
As a matter of federal law, appellant cannot assert an alleged violation of his wife's Fourth Amendment rights as a basis for suppression, at his trial, of evidence taken from his wife. Mabra v. Gray, 518 F (2d) 512.
Zurcher: third party searches and freedom of the press. Cantrell. 62 MLR 35 (1978).
State v. Stevens: Consent by deception in the context of garbage searches. 1987 WLR 191.
PROBABLE CAUSE AND WARRANTS
Probable cause meeting constitutional requirements for issuance of the search warrant of defendant's premises was not established by testimony of a police officer that a youth found in possession of amphetamines informed the officer that a shipment of marijuana was being delivered to defendant's premises, where it was established that the officer had had no previous dealings with the informant and could not personally attest to the informant's reliability; hence the search warrant was invalid. State ex rel. Furlong v. Waukesha County Court, 47 W (2d) 515, 177 NW (2d) 333.
Probable cause for arrest without a warrant under the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution is applicable in this state. Tests for probable cause discussed. A citizen informer is not subject to the requirement that the officer show prior reliability of his informant. State v. Paszek, 50 W (2d) 619, 184 NW (2d) 836.
Probable cause must exist prior to a search of body orifices. State v. Guy, 55 W (2d) 83, 197 NW (2d) 774.
An affidavit reciting that a reliable informant had reported seeing a large quantity of heroin in defendant's apartment is sufficient to support a search warrant. State v. Mansfield, 55 W (2d) 274, 198 NW (2d) 634.
Unauthorized out-of-court disclosures of private marital communications may not be used in a proceeding to obtain a search warrant. Muetze v. State, 73 W (2d) 117, 243 NW (2d) 393.
Search warrant designating entire farmhouse occupied by accused and "other persons unknown" was not invalid despite multiple occupancy. State v. Suits, 73 W (2d) 352, 243 NW (2d) 206.
Warrant authorizing search of "entire first-floor premises" encompassed balcony room which was part and parcel of first floor. Rainey v. State, 74 W (2d) 189, 246 NW (2d) 529.
Search warrant obtained on affidavit containing misrepresentations by police officer as to reliability of unnamed informant is invalid. Where search was conducted within reasonable time following arrest based on probable cause, search will be sustained even though it was conducted in execution of invalid warrant. Schmidt v. State, 77 W (2d) 370, 253 NW (2d) 204.
Affidavits for search warrants need not be drafted with technical specificity nor demonstrate quantum of probable cause required in a preliminary examination; the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence are permissible, and doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved by the preference to be accorded to warrants. State v. Starke, 81 W (2d) 399, 260 NW (2d) 739.
Probable cause for arrest on charge of homicide by intoxicated use of motor vehicle justified taking blood sample without search warrant or arrest. State v. Bentley, 92 W (2d) 860, 286 NW (2d) 153 (Ct. App. 1979).
Defect in portion of search warrant did not invalidate entire search warrant. State v. Noll, 116 W (2d) 443, 343 NW (2d) 391 (1984).
"No knock" warrant to search drug dealer's house was invalid because of lack of specific information to indicate evidence would be destroyed otherwise. State v. Cleveland, 118 W (2d) 615, 348 NW (2d) 512 (1984).
At "Franks hearing" challenging veracity of statement supporting search warrant, defendant must prove that falsehood was intentional or with reckless disregard for truth and that false statement was necessary to finding probable cause. State v. Anderson, 138 W (2d) 451, 406 NW (2d) 398 (1987).
Under "independent source doctrine" court examines whether agent would have sought warrant had it not been for illegal entry, and if information obtained during entry affected decision to issue warrant. State v. Lange, 158 W (2d) 609, 463 W (2d) 390 (Ct. App. 1990).
Status check of driver's license arising out of police exercise of community care taker function is not a stop and does not require reasonable suspicion of crime. State v. Ellenbecker, 159 W (2d) 91, 464 NW (2d) 427 (Ct. App. 1990).
Seizure of package delivered to third party for limited investigative detention requires reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. State v. Gordon, 159 W (2d) 335, 464 NW (2d) 91 (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).
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).
