Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

2009AP919-CR State v. Stokes

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 1, 2011//

2009AP919-CR State v. Stokes

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 1, 2011//

Listen to this article

Search and Seizure
Consent; voluntariness

Robert L. Stokes appeals a judgment convicting him of possession with intent to deliver marijuana, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1m)(h)2. (2005-06). Stokes contends that because the police did not have valid consent to search his residence without a warrant, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the 275 grams of marijuana found in his basement. Specifically, he argues that the consent given by his mother, Deborah Stokes, to search their residence was involuntary because: (1) police tricked her into thinking they had authority to search the residence for evidence of dog fighting when they had no such authority; (2) she was intimidated by the large number of police officers requesting entry into her home; (3) she initially refused consent to enter the residence; and (4) she was “seized” when she gave consent. Stokes additionally argues that regardless of whether Deborah’s consent was valid, the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion because police unlawfully entered the yard and front porch of the residence before gaining consent to enter. We affirm. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2009AP919-CR State v. Stokes

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Van Grunsven, J., Curley, P.J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bolger, John M., Whitefish Bay; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Freimuth, James M., Madison

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests