State v. Jason L. Sedahl, 2010AP1097-CR, District 3, 10/5/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sedahl: William A. Schembera; BiC; Resp. The trial court erred in dismissing a pending charge on the theory that the charge (OWI) resulted from police failure to perform their community caretaker function (preventing him from driving): ¶12 … … Read more
C. Warrant unnecessary
Docket Decision below (KY supreme court) Question Presented (from USSC docket post): Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated… Read more
certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp.; Reply Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph The court of appeals certifies to the supreme court the following question: Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search… Read more
State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge… Read more
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply ¶2 The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the… Read more
State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that… Read more
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161 For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Answering call on lawfully seized cell phone proper, given existence of “probable cause to believe that the cell phone was a tool used in drug trafficking,” plus exigent circumstances (danger of evidence destruction), ¶¶35-42. Probable cause, of… Read more
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161 For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances did not support browsing through image gallery of lawfully seized cell phone: “That data was not in immediate danger of disappearing before Belsha could obtain a warrant,” ¶33. The court of appeals had merely assumed… Read more
