 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Richter6/20/2000
a witness observed the defendant fleeing from his car, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the claim of hot pursuit is unconvincing because there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of the [defendant] from the scene of a crime." Furthermore, a number of courts have concluded that hot pursuit must be accompanied by a credible threat of violence in order to justify a warrantless entry.
. I agree with the circuit court and court of appeals that no exigent circumstances justify this warrantless search. The circuit court stated:
I really don't think that constitutes exigent circumstances. I really don't. The officer could have stood outside and knocked on the door. He's searching for someone that a citizen says ran that way. . . .
Clearly the officer is there illegally because he doesn't have permission. I don't think there are exigent circumstances. I don't think there is hot pursuit. As I indicated, the officer could have very well knocked on the door and - on the outside, explained why he was there, instead of gaining access without permission.
. I agree with the circuit court and court of appeals that the warrantless search was unconstitutional.
. But after deciding the entry was constitutional, the majority opinion unnecessarily concludes that even if the officer's warrantless entry into the defendant's home was not constitutional, the suppression motion must nevertheless be denied because the defendant's consent to search the trailer was sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to remove the "taint" of the illegality.
. I disagree. I conclude that the officer's warrantless, middle-of-the-night entry, awakening of the defendant and failure to conduct an adequate investigation all weigh against a finding of attenuation. The officer entered the defendant's trailer, shook the defendant awake, told him that a burglar had been seen entering his trailer and asked for consent to search the trailer. In the officer's own words at the suppression hearing, "He [the defendant] was sleeping. . . . I had to shake him and woke him up . . . ."
. The majority relies on this "brief conversation" to support a finding of attenuation. The majority opinion's finding of attenuation in this case is inconsistent with other cases and risks making a mockery of the attenuation doctrine.
. This case is, unfortunately, just one more in a line of recent cases in which the court has not been sufficiently protective of the privacy of the home. For the reasons set forth above, I dissent.
. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|