 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Sheboygan v. Zimbal9/8/2004
le and that the search would eventually be conducted without the suspect's consent at any rate. Id.
. This case is far-and-away different from Kiekhefer. First of all, the arresting officer's captain, who talked to Jason's father on the telephone and advised him that he could seek a search warrant, actually thought he could get a warrant. He did not know until afterward that he could not seek a warrant for hit-and-run of an unattended vehicle. He was also convinced that the father could be arrested for obstructing an officer. In Kiekhefer we wrote that while police may not threaten to obtain a search warrant where there are no grounds for a valid warrant, "when the expressed intention to obtain a warrant is genuine ... and not merely a pretext to induce submission, it does not vitiate consent." Id. (citation omitted). The officers in Kiekhefer used pretext to imply that they could sit inside the home for two hours while a warrant was obtained. In this case, however, it is undisputed that both the arresting officer and her captain had a genuine belief that they could obtain a warrant and a genuine belief that they could arrest the father for obstructing. Consent is not vitiated in this situation. Second, the facts in Kiekhefer were egregious. Several officers came into the suspect's bedroom unannounced and uninvited, handcuffed the suspect, and threatened to tear the place apart. The officer in this case never set foot in the house and exhibited no show of force. Consent was not vitiated by the conduct of the arresting officer or her captain.
. We conclude that there was probable cause to arrest and that the seizure of Jason was lawful. We affirm the order denying the motion to suppress and the subsequent conviction.
By the Court. -- Judgment and order affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|