A defendant's consent to a search obtained following illegal police activity may be admissible. The court must consider the temporal proximity of the misconduct to the statements by the defendant, the presence of intervening circumstances and the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct. State v. Phillips, 209 W (2d) 559, 563 NW (2d) 573 (Ct. App. 1997).
Consent to a search must be knowledgeably and voluntarily given. When consent is not requested, it cannot be knowledgeably and voluntarily given. State v. Kiekhefer, 212 W (2d) 460, 569 NW (2d) 316 (Ct. App. 1997).
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).
The 4th amendment does not require that a seized person must be advised that he is free to go before his consent to a search can be recognized as voluntary. Ohio v. Robinette, 519 US 33, 136 LEd 2d 347 (1996).
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).
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).
Probable cause is not required to justify a search conducted on school grounds by a police officer at the request of and in conjunction with with school authorities. A lesser "reasonable grounds" standard applies. State v. Angelia D.B. 211 W (2d) 140, 564 NW (2d) 682 (1997).
A request to perform field sobriety tests does not convert an otherwise lawful investigatory stop into an arrest requiring probable cause. County of Dane v. Campshure, 204 W (2d) 27, 552 NW (2d) 876 (Ct. App. 1996)
A suspect's seeming reluctance to have the front of his boxer shorts patted at or below the waist did not give rise to probable cause to search inside the shorts where no specific suspicion of a crime was focused on the suspect and no weapon or contraband had been plainly felt in a Terry pat down search. State v. Ford, 211 W (2d) 739, 565 NW (2d) 286 (Ct. App. 1997).
It is not necessary that a warrant explicitly state that delivery of the sought after contraband must take place before the search is initiated when the requirement is sufficiently implied. It is not necessary to describe in the affidavit in support of the warrant the exact role the police wil play in delivering the contraband. State v. Ruiz, 213 W (2d) 200, 570 NW (2d) 556 (Ct. App. 1997).
A no-knock search cannot be founded on generalized knowledge. Fruits of an invalid no-knock search must be suppressed. State v. Stevens, 213 W (2d) 324, 570 NW (2d) 593 (Ct. App. 1997).
The showing required to sustain an unannounced entry parallels the reasonable suspicion standard for justifying investigative stops. The police must have reasonable suspicions based on specific articulable facts that announcing their presence will endanger safety or present an opportunity to destroy evidence. State v. Larson, 215 W (2d) 154, 572 NW (2d) 127 (Ct. App. 1997).
There is no constitutional requirement that an anticipatory search warrant contain explicit conditional language limiting the execution of the warrant until after delivery of the contraband. State v. Meyer, 216 W (2d) 729, 576 NW (2d) 260 (1998).
To dispense with the rule of announcement in executing a warrant, particular facts must be shown in each case that support an officer's reasonable suspicion that exigent circumstances exist. An officer's experience and training are valid relevant considerations. State v. Meyer, 216 W (2d) 729, 576 NW (2d) 260 (1998).
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 1, 131 LEd 2d 34 (1994).
There is no blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for executing warrants. To justify no-knock entry, a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing will be dangerous or futile or will inhibit the effective investigation of a crime must exist. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 US 385, 137 LEd 2d 615 (1997).
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).
