Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-2207 State v. Mikkelson

By: dmc-admin//May 13, 2002//

01-2207 State v. Mikkelson

By: dmc-admin//May 13, 2002//

Listen to this article

“[W]ithout being put on notice that the State was relying on more exceptions than just consent, the court did not have an opportunity to clarify the record regarding those exceptions. It would be unfair to the court and to Mikkelson to allow the State to rely exclusively on a different exception to the warrant requirement than what was argued at the suppression hearing.”

And, even if we were to consider the State’s argument, we would reject it.

“Relying on United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 43 (1976), the State argues that the police were entitled to enter the house and arrest Mikkelson because they were in hot pursuit. Santana holds that a suspect may not defeat an arrest that has been set in motion in a public place by escaping to a private place. However, in Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749-51 (1984), the Supreme Court limited Santana to the hot pursuit of fleeing felons. Also, the court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), stated that Santana was limited to in-home arrests of felons when police have probable cause and exigent circumstances. The police were pursuing Mikkelson for obstructing an officer, a misdemeanor…. Therefore, Santana does not permit the warrantless entry into Mikkelson’s house.”

Order suppressing the evidence found inside the house is affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Douglas County, McDonald, J., Peterson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: William L. Gansner, Madison; Kelly J. Thimm, Superior

For Respondent: Michael Yovovich, Madison

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