Follow Us

≡ Menu

State v. Chad W. Ebert, 2010AP1431-CR, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ebert: Chad A. Lanning; case activity; Ebert BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Consent-Based Entry

¶7        The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply when police have consent to enter a dwelling.  State v. Douglas, 123 Wis. 2d 13, 18, 365 N.W.2d 580 (1985).  The issue in this appeal is whether Ebert’s uncle consented to the search of Ebert’s residence, or as the State succinctly put the issue to the circuit court, “[i]f [the uncle’s] story is correct, then [the deputies] had no authority to go in.  If the [deputies] are telling the truth, they had consent to go in.”  As the circuit court in its fact-finding capacity is the ultimate arbiter of witness credibility and the weight to be given to each witness’ testimony, we affirm the circuit court decision that Ebert’s uncle consented to the search of Ebert’s residence.  See Pindel v. Czerniejewski, 185 Wis. 2d 892, 898, 519 N.W.2d 702 (Ct. App. 1994).

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment