State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa
Issue: Whether warrantless entry of defendant’s apartment was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine (risk that evidence — drugs — will be destroyed).
Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence may be justified where both probable cause and exigent circumstances are shown. Probable cause is conceded, leaving exigent circumstances — in this instance, risk of destruction of drugs. ¶¶9-11. The court finds exigent circumstances, based on: Garrett’s having been seen, several minutes after an undercover cocaine purchase and arrest in his building, standing in his doorway holding what appeared to be cocaine; his “flight” into his apartment; and his subsequent failure to answer the door when the police knocked. ¶13. State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, extended. ¶18 (doesn’t matter whether, as in Hughes and unlike here, officer in uniform).