00-3183 State v. Garrett

Listen to this article

“While Detective Kaltenbrun was undercover, unlike the uniformed officers in Hughes, here the totality of the circumstances led him to believe that Garrett was involved in the destruction of the bag of cocaine. Evidence that: (1) only minutes before, two individuals were arrested for selling narcotics to an undercover police officer in Garrett’s building; (2) the detective immediately entered the building after the arrest and observed Garrett open his front door while holding a baggie of what appeared to be cocaine, the same kind of narcotic involved in the arrest outside; (3) the detective approached the doorway, but Garrett quickly slammed the door shut; (4) seconds later, one of the arresting officers reported to the detective that one of the arrested suspects said they bought the cocaine from a person fitting Garrett’s description from Garrett’s apartment; and (5) another officer knocked on the door that Garrett had just slammed, but received no response, was sufficient to establish probable cause and exigent circumstances.”

In addition, we conclude that the protective sweep of the closet was reasonable in that Detective Kaltenbrun could have reasonably believed that an individual was hiding in the closet, the search was narrowly confined to the closet where such an individual could be found, and the sweep was narrowly confined to a brief visual inspection of the closet.

Judgment and orders affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Sankovitz, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael P. Sessa, Waukesha

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; David H. Perlman, Madison