 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hill2/4/1998
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
ANDERSON, J.Christine M. Hill appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, in violation of § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. She contends that a warrantless entry of Town of Pewaukee police officers into her home violated the Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, all the fruits of her arrest should be suppressed. The warrantless home invasion to arrest a person who police believe has violated a traffic regulation is not permitted by the Fourth Amendment; therefore, we reverse Hill's conviction.
Officer Brian Ripplinger was westbound on CTH SS in the Town of Pewaukee when he locked his moving radar on an approaching minivan being driven by Hill at 46 mph in a 35 mph zone. Ripplinger turned the squad car around and caught up to Hill as she was making a left turn into her driveway. Ripplinger immediately turned on his emergency lights and flashing headlights and followed Hill into her driveway. Hill stopped her minivan in her garage and Ripplinger stopped 50 to 60 feet behind her. The officer saw Hill stagger as she exited the minivan and bounce off the rear driver's side quarter panel. He immediately and repeatedly ordered her to remain with her vehicle. Hill responded, "Why? I haven't done anything wrong," and entered her residence. Ripplinger went to the door and through the screen door demanded that Hill return to her vehicle. She responded, "No, I'm home, I'm going to bed," and she slammed the door shut.
Ripplinger had called for backup because he thought he was dealing with an intoxicated driver. The backup unit arrived approximately three minutes after Hill had entered the house. Ripplinger and Officer Kraemer announced themselves at the rear door and entered Hill's residence. After a search of the house, the officers found Hill on a bed in a bedroom on the main level of the residence. After a brief argument, Hill returned to her minivan.
Outside, Hill unsuccessfully performed several field sobriety tests and then became argumentative and refused to do any other tests. Ripplinger arrested Hill for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense, in violation of § 346.63(1)(a), Stats.
Hill filed a motion to suppress challenging the warrantless entry into her residence. The court found that Ripplinger was in continuous hot pursuit for the purpose of issuing Hill a citation for traveling 46 mph in a 35 mph zone. The court also found that Hill was uncooperative and refused the orders of the officer to remain with her minivan. The court concluded that under the facts and circumstances there were sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the officers' warrantless entry into Hill's residence. Hill subsequently entered a "no contest" plea to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense. She now appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.
A circuit court's findings of evidentiary and historical fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. See State v. Turner, 136 Wis.2d 333, 343-44, 401 N.W.2d 827, 832 (1987). However, questions of constitutional fact are subject to an independent appellate review, requiring an independent application of the constitutional principles involved to the facts as found by the trial court. See id. at 344, 401 N.W.2d at 832.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. See State v. Gonzalez, 147 Wis.2d 165, 167, 432 N.W.2d 651, 652 (Ct. App. 1988). "`At the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|