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 Wis. 2d 194, 510 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1993). See also State v. Betterly, 183 Wis. 2d 165, 515 N.W.2d 911 (Ct. App. 1994).
A warrantless entry by uniformed officers to make arrests after undercover agents gained permissive entrance to the premises was justified under the consent exception and no exigent circumstances were required. State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994).
A non-parolee living with a 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 Wis. 2d 68, 517 N.W.2d 482 (1994).
The 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 Wis. 2d 763, 519 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1994).
Evidence obtained in a consensual search of the 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 Wis. 2d 1, 519 N.W.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 Wis. 2d 488, N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994).
The plain view exception applies if the following criteria are met: 1) the officer must have prior justification for being present, 2) the evidence must be in plain view and its discovery inadvertent and 3) 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 Wis. 2d 488, N.W.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 Wis. 2d 255, 525 N.W.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 Wis. 2d 69, 532 N.W.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 Wis. 2d 571, 534 N.W.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 Wis. 2d 445, 538 N.W.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 that may be considered. State v. Morgan, 197 Wis. 2d 200, 539 N.W.2d 887 (1995).
Whether persons have "common authority" to consent to a search of a premises depends, not on property rights, but on the relationship between the consenting party and the premises. Co-residents have "common authority" to consent to a search, but relatives of residents and property owners do not. Consent of one who possesses common authority is binding against an absent resident, but is not binding against a nonconsenting party who is present. State v. Kieffer, 207 Wis. 2d 464, 558 N.W.2d 664 (Ct. App. 1996); Affirmed 217 Wis. 2d 531, 577 N.W.2d 352 (1998).
A probation officer may conduct a warrantless search. That the underlying conviction is subsequently overturned does not retroactively invalidate the search. State v. Angiolo, 207 Wis. 2d 559, 558 N.W.2d 701 (Ct. App. 1996).
An initial traffic stop is not unlawfully extended by asking the defendant if he had drugs or weapons and requesting permission to search. Where there is justification for the initial stop, it is the extension of the stop beyond the point reasonably justified by the stop and not the type of questions asked that render a stop unconstitutional. State v. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 598, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996).
An officer has the right to remain at an arrested person's elbow at all times. When an officer accompanied a juvenile in his custody into the juvenile's house, leaving the juvenile's "elbow" to enter a bedroom where incriminating evidence was found, monitoring of the juvenile stopped and an unconstitutional search occurred. State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 651, 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997).
A threat to the safety of the suspect or others is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances. Where conducting an unannounced warrantless entry creates the potential danger, that conduct cannot justify the warrantless entry. State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997).
The likelihood that evidence will be destroyed is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of contraband does not create exigent circumstances. State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997).
Detaining a person at his home and transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved was an investigative stop and not an arrest, moved the person within the vicinity of the the stop within the meaning of s. 968.24 and was a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997).
The warrantless search of the defendant's purse when it was being returned to her while still in custody was authorized where the search would have been authorized at the time of the arrest and where the return of the purse could have given the defendant access to a weapon or evidence. State v. Wade, 215 Wis. 2d 678, 573 N.W.2d 228 (Ct. App. 1998).
Where a third-party lacks actual common authority to consent to a search of a defendant's residence, the police may rely on the third-party's apparent authority, if that reliance is reasonable. There is no presumption of common authority to consent to a search and the police must make sufficient inquiry to establish apparent authority. State v. Kieffer, 217 Wis. 2d 531, 577 N.W.2d 352 (1998).
A warrantless entry may be justified where the police engage in a bona fide community caretaker activity, although the ultimate test is reasonableness. The relevant considerations are the degree of public interest and exigency of the situation, the circumstances surrounding the search, whether an automobile is involved and whether there are alternatives to entry. State v. Paterson, 220 Wis. 2d 526, 583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1998).
Reasonable suspicion required in a Terry investigative search is a common sense test of what under the circumstances a reasonable police officer would reasonably suspect in light of his or her experience. Police in an area known for drug dealing were justified to stop a driver when at nearly the same time they observed a woman approach then turn from the driver's parked car when she seemed to notice the police and the driver immediately exited the parking lot he was in. State v. Amos, 220 Wis. 2d 793, 584 N.W.2d 170 (Ct. App. 1998).
There is an expectation of privacy in commercial property that is applicable to administrative inspections. Because administrative inspections are not supported by probable cause, they will not be reasonable if, instead of being conducted to enforce a regulatory scheme, they are conducted as a pretext to obtain evidence of criminal activity. State v. Mendoza, 220 Wis. 2d 803, 584 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998). Reversed on other grounds. State v. Mendoza, 227 Wis. 2d 838, 596 N.W.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1998).
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency or operating room. An officer who was present, with the consent of hospital staff, in an operating room during an operation and collected, as evidence, cocaine removed from an unconscious defendant's intestine did not conduct a search and did not make an unreasonable search. State v. Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998).
A warrant authorizing the search of a particularly described premises may permit the search of vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of, and found on, the premises. State v. O'Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303, 588 N.W.2d 8 (1999).
The "emergency doctrine" justifies a warrantless search when an officer is actually motivated by a perceived need to render aid and a reasonable person under the circumstances would have thought an emergency existed. State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999).
Reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stop may be based on an anonymous tip that does not predict future behavior. The key concern is the tipster's veracity. Officers' corroboration of readily observable information supports a finding that because the tipster was correct about innocent activities, he or she is probably correct about the ultimate fact of criminal activity. State v. Williams, 225 Wis. 2d 159, 591 N.W.2d 823 (1999).
A traffic stop must be based on probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. If the facts support a violation only under a legal misinterpretation, no violation has occurred, and by definition there can be no probable cause that a violation has occurred. State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999).
Being in a high crime area, making brief contact with a car, and hanging around a neighborhood each standing alone would not create reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. When these events occurred in sequence and were considered with the officers training and experience, the reputation of the neighborhood, and the time of day, there was enough to create reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen, 226 Wis. 2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999).
Once a justifiable stop is made, the scope of the officer's inquiry may be broadened beyond the original purpose for which the person was stopped if additional particularized and objective, suspicious factors come to the officer's attention. A picture of a mushroom on the defendant's wallet, his appearance of nervousness, and the lateness of the hour were insufficient factors to extend a stop. State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999).
The owner of a commercial property has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas immediately surrounding the property only if affirmative steps have been taken to exclude the public. State v. Yakes, 226 Wis. 2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999).
A home's backyard and back door threshold were within the home's curtilage; an officer's warrantless entry was unlawful and evidence seized as a result of the entry was subject to suppression. State v. Wilson, 229 Wis. 2d 256, 600 N.W. 2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999).
When the 2 other occupants of a vehicle had already been searched without any drugs being found, a search of the 3rd occupant based solely on the odor of marijuana was made with probable cause and was reasonable. State v. Mata, 230 Wis. 2d 567, 602 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1999).
A probation officer may search a probationer's residence without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the terms of probation are being violated, but the officer may not conduct a warrantless search as a subterfuge to further a criminal investigation to help the police evade the usual warrant and probable cause requirements. The police search versus probation search question is one of fact reviewed for clear error. State v. Hajicek, 230 Wis. 2d 697, 602 N.W.2d 93 (Ct. App. 1999).
The risk that evidence will be destroyed is an exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless search. When suspects are aware of the presence of the police, that risk increases. The seriousness of the offense as determined by the overall penalty structure for all potentially chargeable offenses also affects whether exigent circumstances justify a warrantless search. State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621.
Police officers do not need to choose between completing a protective frisk and handcuffing a suspect in a field investigation. They may do both. State v. McGill, 2000 WI 38, 234 Wis. 2d 560, 609 N.W.2d 795.
A frisk of a motor vehicle passenger that occured 25 minutes after the initial stop that was a precautionary measure, not based on the conduct or attributes of the person frisked, was unreasonable. State v. Mohr, 2000 WI App 111, 235 Wis. 2d 220, 613 N.W.2d 186.
When a vehicle passenger has been seized pursuant to a lawful traffic stop, the seizure does not become unreasonable because an officer asks the passenger for identification. The passenger is free to refuse to answer, and refusal will not justify prosecution nor give rise to reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. However, if the passenger chooses to answer falsely, the passenger can be charged with obstruction. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72.
"Hot pursuit", defined as immediate or continuous pursuit of a suspect from a crime scene is an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless search. An officer is not required to persoanlly observe the crime or fleeing suspect. State v. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29.
The property of a passenger in a motor vehicle may be searched when the police have validly arrested the driver but do not have a reasonable basis to detain or probable cause to arrest the passenger. State v. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568.
A warrantless, non-exigent, felony arrest in public was constitutional despite the opportunity to obtain a warrant. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411.
Where a driver was stopped because of expired license plates, a police order to get out of the car was reasonable and a subsequent "pat down" based on an observed bulge under the driver's jacket resulted in the legal seizure of an unlicensed revolver. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977).
The warrantless installation of a pen register, that recorded telephone numbers called but not the contents of the calls, did not violate the 4th amendment. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
A warrantless search of a suitcase in the trunk of a taxi was unconstitutional. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979).
Police may not make a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
The fact that police had lawful possession of pornographic film boxes did not give them authority to search their contents. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980).
The search of a jacket lying in the passenger compartment of a car was incident to a lawful custodial arrest that justified th infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).
An officer who accompanied an arrestee to the arrestee's residence to obtain identification properly seized contraband in plain view. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1 (1982).
Officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle as thorough as could be authorized by warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982).
Where a damaged shipping package was examined by company employes who discovered white powder, a subsequent warrantless field test by police was constitutional. U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).
The "open fields" doctrine discussed. Oliver v. U.S. 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
The warrantless, nighttime entry of the defendant's home for arrest for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense was not justified under the "hot pursuit" doctrine or the preservation of evidence doctrine. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984).
School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student. The legality of the search depends on the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the search. New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
Where officers were entitled to seize packages in a vehicle and could have searched them immediately without a warrant, a warrantless search of the packages 3 days later was reasonable. United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (1985).
The vehicle exception for warrantless search applies to motor homes. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985).
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies where an officer reasonably relies upon a statute allowing a warrantless administrative search that was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987).
A protective sweep of a residence in conjunction with an arrest is permissible if law enforcement reasonably believes that the area harbors an individual posing a danger to officers or others. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990).
"Inadvertence" is not a necessary condition to a "plain view" seizure. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1990).
A determination of probable cause made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest generally meets the promptness requirement. If a hearing is held more than 48 hours following the arrest the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate an emergency or extraordinary circumstances. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991).
An officer's opening of a closed bag found on the floor of a suspect's car during a search of the car made with suspect's consent was not unreasonable. Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 114 L. Ed. 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 U.S. 565, 114 L. Ed. 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 U.S. 366, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1993).
An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the vehicle pending the completion of the stop. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 137 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1997).
Persons observed through a window in a home where they were not overnight guests but were present for a short period to engage in a primarily commercial illegal drug transaction, had no expectation of privacy in the home and the observation of those persons was not a constitutionally prohibited search. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998).
The issuance of a traffic citation without an arrest did not authorize a full search of the vehicle. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 142 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1998).
When there is probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband officers may examine containers in the vehicle without a showing of individualized probable cause for each container. The container may be searched whether or not it's owner is present as a passenger, or otherwise, because it may contain contraband that the officers reasonably believe is in the car. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999).
Police need not obtain a warrant before seizing an automobile from a public place when there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is forfeitable contraband. Florida v. White, 526 US 559, 143 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1999).
The exception to the requirement of a warrant for automobiles does not require a separate finding of exigency, in addition to a finding of probable cause. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 144 L.Ed. 2d 442 (1999).
When there is probable cause to search a motor vehicle, the search is not unreasonable if the search is based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, although a warrant was not obtained. No separate finding of exigent circumstances is required. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999).
There is no murder scene exception to the warrant requirement. Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11, 145 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1999).
Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 US 119, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000).
An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without more, is insufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of a person. The tip must bear indicia of reliability. Reasonable suspicion requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of criminal activity, not just in its tendency to to identify a person. Florida v. J.L. 529 US ___, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000).
State v. Seibel: Wisconsin Police Now Need Only a Reasonable Suspicion to Search a Suspect's Blood Incident to an Arrest. Armstrong. 1993 WLR 563.
I,12 Attainder; ex post facto; contracts. Section 12. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.
Section 45.37 (9), Stats. 1963, constituted a contract as to the property an applicant for admission to the Grand Army Home had to surrender, and to apply a later amendment would be unconstitutional. Estate of Nottingham, 46 Wis. 2d 580, 175 N.W.2d 640.
Although the obligation of contract is not an absolute right but one that may yield to the compelling interest of the public, the public purpose served by a law mandating rent reductions due to property tax relief is not so vital so as to permit such an impairment of contract. State ex rel. Bldg. Owners v. Adamany, 64 Wis. 2d 280, 219 N.W.2d 274.
Retroactive application of 57.06, 1987 stats. [now 304.06] as amended in 1973, increasing the period to be served by petitioners, state prison inmates, from 2 to 5 years before they are eligible for parole consideration, imposes an additional penalty and violates the prohibition against ex post facto legislation. State ex rel. Mueller v. Powers, 64 Wis. 2d 643, 221 N.W.2d 692.
The legislative preclusion against the State Medical Society's divesting itself of control of ch. 148, disability plans does not constitute any impairment of the Society's charter because: 1) The grant of ch. 148 powers is permissive and voluntarily exercised by the Society; 2) the ch. 148 grant is in the nature of a franchise rather than a contract and cannot be viewed as unalterable or it would constitute a delegation of inalienable legislative power; and 3) the constitutional interdiction against statutes impairing contracts does not prevent the state from exercising its police powers for the common good. State Medical Society v. Comm. of Insurance, 70 Wis. 2d 144, 233 N.W.2d 470.
Where a probation statute was amended after a crime was committed but before the accused pled guilty and was placed on probation, application of the amended statute to probation revocation proceedings offended ex post facto clause. State v. White, 97 Wis. 2d 517, 294 N.W.2d 36 (Ct. App. 1979).
A challenge to legislation must prove 1) the legislation impairs an existing contractual relationship, 2) the impairment is substantial and 3) if substantial, the impairment is not justified by the purpose of the legislation. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. La Follette, 108 Wis. 2d 637, 323 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1982).
The ex post facto prohibition applies to judicial pronouncements as well as legislative acts. The question to be addressed is whether the new law criminalizes conduct that was innocent when committed. State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 509 N.W.2d 712 (1993).
Legislation creating penalty enhancers resulting from convictions prior to the effective date does not run afoul of the ex post facto clause. State v. Schuman, 186 Wis. 2d 213, 520 N.W.2d 107 (Ct. App. 1994).
An ex post facto law is one that punishes as a crime an act previously committed, that 1) was innocent when done, 2) makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission or 3) deprives one charged with a crime of any defense available at the time the act was committed. State v. Thiel, 188 Wis. 2d 695, 524 N.W.2d 641 (1994).
Constitutionality of rent control discussed. 62 Atty. Gen. 276.
I,13 Private property for public use. Section 13. The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor.
The dismissal of an appeal for lack of prosecution in a condemnation action does not violate the condemnee's right to just compensation. Taylor v. State Highway Comm. 45 Wis. 2d 490, 173 N.W.2d 707.
The total rental loss occasioned by the condemnation is compensable, and a limitation to one year's loss is invalid. Luber v. Milwaukee County, 47 Wis. 2d 271, 177 N.W.2d 380.
A prohibition against filling in wetlands pursuant to an ordinance adopted under ss. 59.971 and 144.26 [now 59.692 and 281.31] does not amount to a taking of property. Police powers vs. eminent domain discussed. Just v. Marinette County, 56 Wis. 2d 7, 201 N.W.2d 761.
