Follow Us

facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

The future of the exclusionary rule

SCOTUS will hear argument in Utah v. Strieff on February 22nd. Orin Kerr just published, on SCOTUSblog, this analysis of the future of the exclusionary rule, which has come under attack in recent decisions like Davis v. U.S. and Herring v. U.S. If you’ve got a Fourth Amendment issue, his post is worth a read.

facebooktwitterlinkedin

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs).

Issue (composed by On Point):

Is hot pursuit of a suspect based upon probable cause for a jailable offense a stand-alone justification for a warrantless home entry and arrest or must law enforcement reasonably believe that a delay in obtaining a warrant would endanger life, risk destruction of evidence, or greatly enhance the likelihood of the person’s escape? Read more

facebooktwitterlinkedin

State v. Zachary W. Swan, 2015AP1718-CR, 2/4/16, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity, including briefs

Swan was convicted of OWI 2nd with a prohibited alcoh0l content. On appeal he argued that the circuit court should have suppressed the results of a preliminary breath test and other evidence due to the absence of probable cause. The court of appeals sua sponte invoked the doctrine of issue preclusion and affirmed the conviction. Read more

facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s New York Times notes a study finding that in 2015 a record 149 people in the United States were found to have been falsely convicted of a crime. Official misconduct played a role in 65 exonerations and false confessions were seen in 27. The National Registry of Exonerations, based at the University of Michigan law school, reported the findings.

facebooktwitterlinkedin

State v. Richard J. Slayton, 2015AP1255-CR, 2/3/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity, briefs

Slayton, who was arrested for OWI, challenged a search warrant authorizing his blood draw. The supporting affidavit stated that an officer had reviewed his driving record and noted previous OWI conviction that were “prior countable offenses” under Ch. 346. But it provided no other information about the alleged convictions and thus no way to verify their existence. The court of appeals held that nothing more was required. The affidavit merely had to apprise the magistrate of “sufficient facts to excite an honest belief in a reasonable mind that the object sought is linked with the commission of a crime,” under Bast v. State87 Wis. 2d 689, 692-93, 276 N.W.2d 682 (1979). Besides, Slayton didn’t challenge the assertion that he had previous countable convictions.

facebooktwitterlinkedin

State v. David Hager, Jr., 2015AP330, and State v. Howard Carter, 2015AP1311, District 3, 2/2/2015; case activity (Hager) (Carter) (including briefs)

Issues

(1) Does [the 2013 Wis. Act 84] change in [Wis. Stat. § 980.09(2)] authorize the circuit court to weigh the evidence [to determine whether to hold a discharge trial], overruling State v. Arends, 2010 WI 46, ¶¶40-43, 325 Wis. 2d 1, 784 N.W.2d 513; (2) If the court is allowed to weigh the evidence, how is such a weighing accomplished, and, specifically, what factors should the court consider when predicting whether the factfinder would likely conclude the person no longer meets the criteria for commitment; (3) If the statute allows the court to weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of the competing psychological reports at this stage where the petitioner bears the burden of establishing a change in his or her condition, is the statute unconstitutional because it misallocates the burden of proof; and (4) Does the change in the statute apply retroactively to a petition for discharge filed before the revised statute’s effective date.

Read more

facebooktwitterlinkedin

City of Milwaukee v. D.S., 2015AP1634, 2/2/16, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.S., a juvenile, was ordered to register as a sex offender for life. On appeal, he argued that the circuit court relied on two types of inaccurate information: (1) a report, prepared by Dr. Paul Hesse, regarding the recidivism rate for juvenile sex offenders at Lincoln Hills, and (2) misinformation about the meaning of D.S.’s JSOAP-II scores.  He lost on both counts. Read more

facebooktwitterlinkedin

Michael J. Belleau v. Edward F. Wall, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-3225, 1/29/16

The Seventh Circuit holds that Wis. Stat. § 301.48, which requires certain sex offenders to wear a GPS monitoring device, does not violate either the Fourth Amendment or the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. This decision reverses a Wisconsin federal district judge’s decision striking down the statute. Read more

facebooktwitterlinkedin