By: Derek Hawkins//October 26, 2016//
WI Court of Appeals – District I
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Andrew S. Sato
Case No.: 2015AP1815-CR
Officials: Brennan and Brash, JJ., and Daniel L. LaRocque, Reserve Judge.
Focus: Motion to Suppress – Warrantless Arrest
Andrew Sato appeals a judgment of conviction for robbery by threat of force contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.32(1)(b) (2013-14), entered upon a plea of guilty, as well as the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, and he relies upon evidence that the police unlawfully entered the curtilage area outside his apartment to obtain the exigent circumstance used to justify a warrantless entry and arrest. He would have the court apply the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to the post-arrest search warrant. Even if a curtilage violation occurred and there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry, we conclude that the search and seizure at issue were nevertheless sufficiently attenuated from the preceding events so as to avoid the exclusionary rule. We therefore affirm the judgment and order.