4th Amendment Violation – Seizure

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Steven T. Delap

Case No.: 2018 WI 64

Focus: 4^th Amendment Violation – Seizure

This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming a judgment of conviction of the Circuit Court for Dodge County, Steven G. Bauer, Judge. Steven Delap, the defendant, was convicted of obstructing an officer in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1) and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.573(1), both as a repeater.

The defendant claims that the arrest and subsequent search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. The circuit court concluded that the hot pursuit doctrine permitted the law enforcement officers in the instant case to follow the defendant into his home to effectuate his arrest. Relying on the hot pursuit doctrine, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals, but on grounds different than those relied upon by the circuit court and court of appeals. We conclude that the instant case is governed by Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), and we need not address the applicability of the hot pursuit doctrine. In the instant case, law enforcement officers had two valid arrest warrants based on probable cause for the arrest of the defendant. The facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time they located the defendant were sufficient to form probable cause to believe that the individual they saw entering the residence was the defendant and that the defendant lived in the residence into which he fled.

Thus, applying the teachings of Payton, we conclude that the law enforcement officers in the instant case lawfully entered the defendant’s residence to execute the two valid warrants for the defendant’s arrest and lawfully seized evidence discovered in the search incident to the defendant’s arrest. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur: GABLEMAN, J., concurs, joined by KELLY, J. (opinion filed).

Dissent:

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.