By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//February 1, 2011//
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 Not recommended for publication in the official reports.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