The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages that he had sent to and were stored in another person's cell phone. Once the defendant sent the messages, he had no control over whether the recipient saved them, deleted them, forwarded them to others or shared their content in any way. This lack of control over what is done with the text message and lack of any right to exclude others from reading it are key in the determination that the defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages stored in the other person's phone. State v. Tentoni,
2015 WI App 77,
365 Wis. 2d 211,
871 N.W.2d 285,
14-2387.
The statement in
Popke, 2009 WI 37, that “a police officer may . . . conduct a traffic stop when, under the totality of the circumstances, he or she has grounds to reasonably suspect that a crime or traffic violation has been or will be committed," did not purport to circumscribe the universe of possible scenarios within which traffic stops permissibly may occur, or to make such limits contingent on whether the legislature has titled a particular law a “traffic regulation." A reasonable suspicion that a violation of the littering statute, s. 287.81, a non-traffic civil forfeiture offense, had occurred justified a brief and limited traffic stop. The more onerous standard of probable cause would also therefore justify a traffic stop. State v. Iverson,
2015 WI 101,
365 Wis. 2d 302,
871 N.W.2d 661,
14-0515.
In
Jardines,
569 U.S. 1 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the curtilage of a person's home remains a constitutionally protected area without consideration of whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has adopted 4 factors set forth in
Dunn,
480 U.S. 294 (1987), relevant to conducting an analysis of whether an area constitutes curtilage of a home: 1) the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home; 2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home; 3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put; and 4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. These factors did not weigh in favor of curtilage designation when applied to the parking garage located beneath the defendant's apartment building. State v. Dumstrey,
2016 WI 3,
366 Wis. 2d 64,
873 N.W.2d 502,
13-0857.
There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the defendant's parking garage located beneath a 30-unit apartment building such that it warranted 4th amendment protection against warrantless entry for arrest. The relevant test is: 1) whether the person exhibits an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the area; and 2) whether society is willing to recognize such an expectation as reasonable. In making this determination a 6-factor test is applied. State v. Dumstrey,
2016 WI 3,
366 Wis. 2d 64,
873 N.W.2d 502,
13-0857.
The 4th amendment does not inflexibly require that officers be concerned about specific, known individuals in order to be acting as community caretakers. State v. Matalonis,
2016 WI 7,
366 Wis. 2d 443,
875 N.W.2d 567,
14-0108.
A warrantless blood sample may be justified even when an inferior form of evidence may be available. The fact that morphine remains in the body for several hours after the ingestion of heroin does not mean that it would be unreasonable for an officer to believe that taking the time to obtain a search warrant in this case risked destruction of evidence of heroin use. That the defendant never used a car in this case did not elevate his privacy interests to such heights as to render any warrantless blood draw under exigent circumstances unreasonable. State v. Parisi,
2016 WI 10,
367 Wis. 2d 1,
875 N.W. 2d 619,
14-1267.
A blood draw from the defendant under s. 343.305 while the defendant was unconscious was permissible under the 4th amendment under the exigent circumstances doctrine when a deputy had probable cause to arrest the defendant for operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration. State v. Howes,
2017 WI 18,
373 Wis. 2d 468,
893 N.W.2d 812,
14-1870.
Under
Purtell, when a condition of probation prohibits the possession of a certain item, and the subject of the search knowingly breaks that condition, in most situations a probation agent would presumably have reasonable grounds to search the contents of the item.
Purtell tells us that as long as there are “reasonable grounds” to believe a probationer has contraband, a probation agent will almost always have the right to search the contraband itself without a warrant. State v. Keller,
2017 WI App 19,
374 Wis. 2d 325,
893 N.W.2d 276,
16-0500.
When a probation agent lawfully seized a contraband computer from a probationer but did not have the ability to examine the contents of the contraband and requested the assistance of an analyst at the division of criminal investigation, independent from any law enforcement investigation, so as to examine the contents of the computer, based upon the rationale set forth in
Purtell and
Devries, the search was not a police search. State v. Keller,
2017 WI App 19,
374 Wis. 2d 325,
893 N.W.2d 276,
16-0500.
In cases involving warrantless community caretaker impoundments, the fundamental question is the reasonableness of the seizure. The absence of standard criteria does not by default render a warrantless community caretaker impoundment unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment reasonableness standard, nor does an officer's lack of adherence to standard criteria, if they exist, automatically render such impoundments unconstitutional. Under the reasonableness standard, an officer's discretion to impound a car is sufficiently cabined by the requirement that the decision to impound be based, at least in part, on a reasonable community caretaking concern and not exclusively on the suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Asboth,
2017 WI 76,
376 Wis. 2d 644,
898 N.W.2d 541,
15-2052.
The danger inherent to traffic stops authorizes an officer to take certain negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete his or her mission safely. When after writing traffic citations, the officer returned to the defendant's car and asked him to submit to a search, this request did not extend the stop beyond its permissible duration. Because the request related to officer safety and was negligibly burdensome, it was part of the traffic stop's mission, and so did not cause an extension. Whatever additional time the actual search consumed, or the burden it imposed, was irrelevant so long as the defendant consented to it. State v. Floyd,
2017 WI 78,
377 Wis. 2d 394,
898 N.W.2d 560,
15-1294.
A court is not bound by an officer's subjective reasons for a search. That a search was going to happen pursuant to law enforcement agency policy is not controlling. Rather, the question is whether the search itself was constitutionally permissible as an objective matter. The officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to search for weapons. One who reacts to a question by quieting down, becoming deflated, and responding demurely does so for a reason. A reasonably prudent officer seeing this response to a question about weapons would be suspicious and wonder if the answer was truthful. An abnormal nervousness or unusual response to interaction with law enforcement is a relevant factor in whether a person is armed and dangerous. State v. Nesbit,
2017 WI App 58,
378 Wis. 2d 65,
902 N.W.2d 266,
16-0224.
In
Hughes,
233 Wis. 2d 280, the supreme court held that exigent circumstances exist where there is a strong odor of marijuana emanating from a residence and occupants simply become aware of police outside the door. An officer could reasonably believe that a juvenile who is attempting to flee from a residence when officers are on the property and the odor of burning marijuana is in the air is more likely to also attempt to prevent evidence from being discovered by the police, including through the destruction of such evidence. State v. Torres,
2017 WI App 60,
378 Wis. 2d 201,
902 N.W.2d 543,
16-1061.
Under
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond,
531 U.S. 32, generally, a search or seizure will be deemed unreasonable “in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.” However, there are limited circumstances when special law enforcement concerns justify highway stops without individualized suspicion, such as when a suspicionless search is designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement. The factors for determining reasonableness are the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty. If the public interest aspects of the first 2 factors are not outweighed by the 4th amendment protections represented by the third factor, the protections offered by the 4th amendment are not violated. State v. Scott,
2017 WI App 74,
378 Wis. 2d 578,
904 N.W.2d 125,
16-1742.
Because a traffic stop's mission includes the ordinary inquiries, such as checking a driver's license, an officer who lawfully stops a vehicle should be able to complete that mission even if the reason for the traffic stop ended during the officer's walk to the stopped vehicle. Ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop include: checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile's registration and proof of insurance. State v. Smith,
2018 WI 2,
379 Wis. 2d 86,
905 N.W.2d 353,
15-0756.
A police officer's act of opening a vehicle's passenger door in order to effectively communicate with a driver otherwise inaccessible due to the malfunctioning driver's door and window when the defendant appeared to be cooperating and moving toward the passenger seat, and seemed to be trying to open the passenger door, did not constitute an unreasonable search. The officer's actions, viewed objectively, would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe the action taken was appropriate. State v. Smith,
2018 WI 2,
379 Wis. 2d 86,
905 N.W.2d 353,
15-0756.
Despite the defendant passing field sobriety tests and the officer apparently concluding that the defendant was not impaired due to alcohol, the officer, quite reasonably, believed there was “something else going on,” though he did not know if it was a medical issue or a drug issue. From the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable inference of wrongful conduct — that the defendant had driven while under the influence of a drug or drugs — could be objectively discerned, and thus the officer had the right to continue the temporary detention of the defendant for further investigation. State v. Rose,
2018 WI App 5,
379 Wis. 2d 663,
907 N.W.2d 463,
16-2257.
Under
Payton,
445 U.S. 573, police may enter a residence pursuant to an arrest warrant if the facts and circumstances present the police with a reasonable belief that: 1) the subject of the arrest warrant resides in the home; and 2) the subject of the arrest warrant is present in the home at the time entry is effected. State v. Delap,
2018 WI 64,
382 Wis. 2d 92,
913 N.W.2d 175,
16-2196.
A search occurs when a convicted recidivist sex offender who has completed his or her sentence is required to attach a monitoring device to his or her body to track his or her movements. The reasonableness of a search depends upon the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations. Under the totality of the circumstances, given the diminished nature of a defendant's privacy interest and the state's particularly strong interest in reducing recidivism through the information collected by the tracking device, the global positioning system tracking requirement for convicted sex offenders is reasonable under the 4th Amendment. Kaufman v. Walker,
2018 WI App 37,
382 Wis. 2d 774,
915 N.W.2d 193,
17-0085.
The 4th Amendment's special needs doctrine applies to s. 301.48. The global positioning system (GPS) tracking program effectively serves the recognized special needs of deterring future crimes and gathering information needed to solve them. The state's interest in accomplishing these special needs in the context of sex crimes outweighs sex offenders' diminished privacy expectations. Kaufman v. Walker,
2018 WI App 37,
382 Wis. 2d 774,
915 N.W.2d 193,
17-0085.
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.
When 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).
A burning building clearly presents an exigency rendering a warrantless entry reasonable, and fire officials need no warrant to remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the fire after it is extinguished. Michigan v. Tyler,
436 U.S. 499 (1978)
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, nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Payton v. New York,
445 U.S. 573 (1980).
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).
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).
When an officer, after stopping a defendant's car at a routine driver's license checkpoint, saw a tied-off party balloon in plain sight, the officer had probable cause to believe the balloon contained an illicit substance. Hence, a warrantless seizure of the balloon was legal. Texas v. Brown,
460 U.S. 730 (1983).
A warrantless search by arson investigators of the defendant's fire-damaged home that was not a continuation of an earlier search was unconstitutional. Michigan v. Clifford,
464 U.S. 287 (1984).
When a damaged shipping package was examined by company employees 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 is 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).
When 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 searches applies to motor homes. California v. Carney,
471 U.S. 386 (1985).
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when 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 police reasonably believe 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).
For a seizure of a person to occur there must either be an application of force, however slight, or when force is absent, submission to an officer's “show of authority." California v. Hodari D.
499 U.S. 279, 113 L. Ed. 690 (1991).
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).
There shall be one rule governing all automobile searches. The police may search the car and all containers within it without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained in either. 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 U.S. 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).
Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion. Headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion. Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 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 U.S. 266,
146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000).
Stopping vehicles at highway checkpoints without any individualized suspicion to interdict illegal drugs was an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment because the primary purpose was to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, unlike checkpoints to check for drunk driving or illegal immigrants. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond,
531 U.S. 32,
148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000).
The police acted reasonably when, with probable cause to believe that the defendant had hidden drugs in his home, they prevented the man from entering the home for about 2 hours until a search warrant could be obtained. Illinois v. McArthur,
531 U.S. 326, 148 LEd2d 838 (2001).
A state hospital could not test maternity patients for cocaine and then turn the results over to law enforcement authorities without patient consent. The interest of using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine does not justify a departure from the rule that a nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a warrant. Ferguson v. City of Charleston,
525 U.S. 67,
149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001).
If an officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed even a very minor criminal offense that does not breach the peace, the officer may, without violating the 4th amendment, arrest the offender without the need to balance the circumstances involved in the particular situation. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista,
532 U.S. 318,
149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001)
Obtaining, by sense-enhancing technology like infrared imaging, information regarding the interior of a home that could otherwise not be obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is a search presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Kyllo v. U.S.
533 U.S. 27,
150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001).
A warrantless search of a probationer's residence founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and authorized as a condition of probation was reasonable. Such a search is not restricted to monitoring whether the probationer is complying with probation restrictions. U.S. v. Knights,
534 U.S. 112,
151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001).
Police officers may approach bus riders at random to ask questions and to request consent to search luggage without advising the passengers of their right to not cooperate. U.S. v. Drayton,
536 U.S. 194,
153 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2002).
A school district policy of requiring all participants in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing was a reasonable means of furthering the district's interest in preventing drug use among students and was not an unreasonable search. Board of Education of Independent School District. No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. White,
536 U.S. 822,
153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002).
A highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run was reasonable. The arrest of a drunk driver arrested when his vehicle swerved nearly hitting an officer at the checkpoint was constitutional. Illinois v. Lidster,
540 U.S. 419,
124 S. Ct. 885,
157 L. Ed 2d 843 (2004).
When a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile, the 4th amendment allows the officer to search the passenger compartment of that vehicle as a contemporaneous incident of arrest whether the officer makes contact with the occupant while the occupant is inside the vehicle, or when the officer first makes contact with the arrestee after the latter has exited the vehicle. Thornton v. U.S.
541 U.S. 615,
124 S. Ct. 2127,
158 L. Ed 2d 905 (2004).
The principles of
Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a
Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County,
542 U.S. 177,
124 S. Ct. 2451,
159 L. Ed 2d 292 (2004).
The 4th amendment does not requires reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop. The use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. Illinois v. Caballes,
543 U.S. 405,
125 S. Ct. 834,
160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2004).
Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. An action is reasonable under the 4th amendment, regardless of the individual officer's state of mind, “as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. Brigham City v. Stuart,
547 U.S. 398,
126 S. Ct. 1943,
164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006).
Warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the U.S. constitution, and while states are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the 4th amendment's protections. Virginia v. Moore,
553 U.S. 164,
128 S. Ct. 1598,
170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008).
In a traffic-stop setting, the first
Terry condition — a lawful investigatory stop — is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson,
555 U.S. 323,
129 S. Ct. 781,
172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009).
Belton does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant's arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. Police are authorized to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Consistent with
Thornton, circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant,
556 U.S. 332,
129 S. Ct. 1710,
173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009).
The
New Jersey v. T. L. O. concern to limit a school search to a reasonable scope requires reasonable suspicion of danger or a resort to hiding evidence of wrongdoing in underwear before a searcher can reasonably make the quantum leap from a search of outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts. The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions. Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding,
557 U.S. 364,
129 S. Ct. 2633,
174 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2009).
A government employer had the right, under the circumstances of the case, to read text messages sent and received on a pager the employer owned and issued to an employee. The privacy of the messages was not protected by the ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures" found in the 4th amendment. Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable. Ontario v. Quon,
560 U.S. 746,
130 S. Ct. 2619, 560 US 746,
177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010).
Warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the 4th amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement. The exigent circumstances rule justifies a warrantless search when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable in the same sense. When the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the 4th amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed. Kentucky v. King,
563 U.S. 452,
131 S. Ct. 1849,
179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011).
The government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a “search." United States v. Jones,
565 U.S. 400,
132 S. Ct. 945,
181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012).
Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken. When an alleged 4th amendment violation involves a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner. There is a narrow exception allowing suit when it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue. Messerschmidt v. Millender,
565 U.S. 535,
132 S. Ct. 1235,
182 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2012).
Generally, every detainee who will be admitted to the general jail population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed. Undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from these invasive procedures absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband. Deference must be given to the officials in charge of the jail unless there is substantial evidence demonstrating their response to the situation is exaggerated. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington,
566 U.S. 318,
132 S. Ct. 1510,
182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012).
The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. A spatial constraint defined by the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched is therefore required for detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant. Limiting the rule in
Summers to the area in which an occupant poses a real threat to the safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures that the scope of the detention incident to a search is confined to its underlying justification. Once an occupant is beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, the search-related law enforcement interests are diminished and the intrusiveness of the detention is more severe. Bailey v. United States,
568 U.S. 186,
133 S. Ct. 1031,
185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013).
Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner's porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do. But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. Florida v. Jardines,
569 U.S. 1,
133 S. Ct. 1409,
185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013).
Natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a
per se exigency that justifies an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. Consistent with general 4th amendment principles, exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. Missouri v. McNeely,
569 U.S. 141,
133 S. Ct. 1552,
185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013).
Police officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting a search of the information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___,
134 S. Ct. 2473,
189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014)
In light of
United States v. Jones and
Florida v. Jardines, it follows that a state conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person's body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual's movements. That conclusion, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program's constitutionality. The 4th amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___,
135 S. Ct. 1368,
194 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015).
A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the constitution's shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. ___,
135 S. Ct. 1609,
191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015).
The attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. The evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer's discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest. Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___,
136 S. Ct. 2056,
195 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2016).
A breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. As in all cases involving reasonable searches incident to arrest, a warrant is not needed in this situation. The 4th Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for blood alcohol content testing is great. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. ___,
136 S. Ct. 2160,
195 L. Ed 2d 560 (2016).
Within the meaning of the 4th amendment, domestic animals are effects and the killing of a companion dog constitutes a seizure, which is constitutional only if reasonable. Viilo v. Eyre,
547 F.3d 707 (2008).
Given how slight is the incremental loss of privacy from having to wear an anklet monitor, and how valuable to society the information collected by the monitor is, s. 301.48 does not violate the 4th amendment. The terms of supervised release, probation, and parole often authorize searches by probation officers without the officers' having to obtain warrants. Such warrantless searches do not violate the 4th amendment as long as they are reasonable. Such monitoring of sex offenders is permissible if it satisfies the reasonableness test applied in parolee and special-needs cases. Wisconsin's ankle monitoring of the defendant is reasonable. Belleau v. Wall,
811 F.3d 929 (2016).
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.
But What of Wisconsin's Exclusionary Rule? The Wisconsin Supreme Court Accepts Apparent Authority to Consent as Grounds for Warrantless Searches. Schmidt. 83 MLR 299.
