State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09 For Lee: Robert E. Haney Issue/Holding: Police investigating complaint of drug dealing were entitled to enter apartment and conduct “protective sweep” when they saw, through the open front door, clear evidence of drugs: ¶13 The officers who presented themselves at Lee’s front door were investigating… Read more
C. Warrant unnecessary
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62 For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen Issue/Holding: ¶25 Kramer argues that the “totally divorced” language from Cady means that the officer must have ruled out any possibility of criminal activity before the community caretaker function is bona fide. The State, on the other hand… Read more
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62 For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen Issue/Holding: The 3-factor test for determining validity of community caretaker intervention, as articulated by State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162, 167, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1987), and the lead opinion of State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI… Read more
State v. Lance F. Truax, 2009 WI App 60, PFR filed 5/4/09 For Truax: Kiley Zellner Issue/Holding: Largely on community caretaker rationale of State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, the court upholds seizure of car observed pulling over on the shoulder late at night. The cop didn’t suspect any traffic violation, but simply thought that a… Read more
State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, PFR filed 11/25/09 For Phillips: Michael J. Backes Issue/Holding: ¶8 There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and… Read more
State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09 For Lee: Robert E. Haney Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence is supported when the State demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances, ¶7. Exigent circumstances include: (1) hot pursuit of suspect; (2) threat to someone’s safety; (3) risk of evidence destruction; and (4) likelihood suspect… 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: Displayed image on cell phone satisfied plain view doctrine (lawful position of officer, inadvertent discovery, probable cause to be images displayed contraband), ¶¶23-25… Read more
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2008 WI App 161, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 8 For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Continued possession of Carroll’s cell phone justified, though Carroll not in custody. Expectation of privacy in cell phone analogous to that attending “closed container” such as luggage, as to which detention of container… Read more
