David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132 Question presented: Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights. Lower court opinion: People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished) Docket Scotusblog page United States v. Brima Wurie, USSC… Read more
C. Warrant unnecessary
Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity Issue (composed by On Point) When the passenger of a car asks a police officer searching the car if he has “got a warrant for that?” before the officer opens a briefcase found in the hatchback of the car, has the driver’s general consent to search… Read more
State v. Jeffrey G. Vanden Huevel, 2013AP1107-CR, District 3, 10/8/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity After rolling his car over early one morning Vanden Huevel left the scene of the accident and went back to his cabin. (¶¶1-7). A sheriff’s deputy named Kelley located the cabin and started knocking on… Read more
State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent. In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home… Read more
Maryland v. King, USSC No. 12-207, 6/3/13 United States Supreme Court decision, reversing King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012) In a decision validating the collection of DNA from at least some persons before they are even convicted of a crime, a divided Supreme Court has concluded that when officers make an arrest supported… Read more
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely marked a big change for Wisconsin. Click here for On Point’s analysis of the case. If you’re yearning for more information on what McNeely means for Wisconsin OWI cases, you might want to watch this half-hour program on Wisconsin Eye. It features Dane County Judge… Read more
Question presented: Proper interpretation of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), specifically whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant’s previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is… Read more
State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine: ¶37 …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering… Read more
