Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

3. “New Federalism”

State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles: ¶22      We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Issue/Holding: ¶20      Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540, 683… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62 For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen Issue/Holding: ¶18      Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis.  2d… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas William Brady, 2007 WI App 33, PFR filed 2/13/07 For Brady: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the target of a search was not at home when the police forcibly entered pursuant to a search warrant, their unannounced entry did not, although not authorized by the warrant, violate the fourth amendment. ¶13… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227 For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶19      … (T)his court ordinarily adopts and follows the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.… ¶27      Young, however, argues that we should reject Hodari D. and interpret Article I… Read More

{ 0 comments }

In a series of recent cases, the supreme court has joined what it terms “the ‘new federalism’ movement,” State v. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127, ¶84 and id., n. 20 (Crooks, J., conc. w/ majority support of 4 votes), which refers to a tendency to look first to the state constitution and assign greater rights… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3: Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ….”… Read More

{ 0 comments }