Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Richtergreen1 sentence2022See Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶43 (“[W]e do not apply hindsight to the exigency analysis; we consider only the circumstances known to the officer at the time he made the entry and evaluate the reasonableness of the officer’s action in light of those circumstances.”). ¶56 Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the State failed to demonstrate that law enforcement had no time to obtain a warrant and that there was an urgent need to act without one. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not consider inadequately developed arguments). 9 2021See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals need not consider inadequately developed arguments). 9 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Patrick H. Daltongreen2 sentences2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr 2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr 2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr | 1 | 1 |
State v. David W. Howesgreen2 sentences2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr 2020See also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2537-38 (2019) (considering pre-blood draw factors in the exigency analysis); Dalton, 383 Wis. 2d 147, ¶¶45-48 (considering in the exigency analysis various law enforcement responsibilities officers prioritized over applying for a warrant in the two hours between the alcohol-related crash and the suspect’s refusal to submit to a blood draw at the hospital); Howes, 373 Wis. 2d 468, ¶49 (suggesting that when an officer has probable cause of an OWI violation at the scene of a traffic stop and is transporting a suspect to the hospital for a blood dr | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences2014See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769, 770-71 (holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw of suspected drunken driver's blood partly because officer needed to investigate the scene of a car accident); McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1568 ("the need for the police to attend to a car accident" is one factor that the exigency analysis may consider). 2014See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769, 770-71 (holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw of suspected drunken driver's blood partly because officer needed to investigate the scene of a car accident); McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1568 ("the need for the police to attend to a car accident" is one factor that the exigency analysis may consider). | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. McNeelygreen2 sentences2014See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769, 770-71 (holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw of suspected drunken driver's blood partly because officer needed to investigate the scene of a car accident); McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1568 ("the need for the police to attend to a car accident" is one factor that the exigency analysis may consider). 2014See Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769, 770-71 (holding that exigent circumstances justified warrantless draw of suspected drunken driver's blood partly because officer needed to investigate the scene of a car accident); McNeely, 133 S. Ct. at 1568 ("the need for the police to attend to a car accident" is one factor that the exigency analysis may consider). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Donovangreen2 sentences2003See generally State v. Donovan, 91 Wis. 2d 401, 408 , 283 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1979) ("Reasonableness as the ultimate standard of lawfulness of a warrantless search is fulfilled only if its two components are met: (1) probable cause to search and (2) exigent circumstances that excuse application for a judicially authorized search warrant."). ¶ 10. 2003See generally State v. Donovan, 91 Wis. 2d 401, 408 , 283 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1979) ("Reasonableness as the ultimate standard of lawfulness of a warrantless search is fulfilled only if its two components are met: (1) probable cause to search and (2) exigent circumstances that excuse application for a judicially authorized search warrant."). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
Cardwell v. Lewisgreen1 sentence1978It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.” Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Cady v. Dombrowskigreen1 sentence1978The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently noted in Thompson v. State, 83 Wis.2d 134, 142 , 265 N.W.2d 467 (1978) that, “it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception [to requiring a warrant for police searches] has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice.” Exigent circumstances to conduct an automobile search have frequently been found to be that the car is mobile, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973), and because citizens have a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile due | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kiekhefer
green
2 sentences2014Parisi cites to our decision in State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460 , 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), in support of her assertion that no exigent circumstances existed. 2014Parisi cites to our decision in State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460 , 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), in support of her assertion that no exigent circumstances existed. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Ross
green
1 sentence2001We made this clear in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 ... (1982), when we said that in cases where there was probable cause to search a vehicle "a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained." (Emphasis added.) ... [In La-bron\, we repeated that the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement: "If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment... permits police to search the vehicle without more." Id. ¶ 31 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2000Smith, 131 Wis. 2d at 230 . 2000Smith, 131 Wis. 2d at 230 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences1978The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently noted in Thompson v. State, 83 Wis.2d 134, 142 , 265 N.W.2d 467 (1978) that, “it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception [to requiring a warrant for police searches] has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice.” Exigent circumstances to conduct an automobile search have frequently been found to be that the car is mobile, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973), and because citizens have a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile due 1978The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently noted in Thompson v. State, 83 Wis.2d 134, 142 , 265 N.W.2d 467 (1978) that, “it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception [to requiring a warrant for police searches] has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice.” Exigent circumstances to conduct an automobile search have frequently been found to be that the car is mobile, Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 440-41 (1973), and because citizens have a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile due | 1 | 1978–1978 |
United States v. Chadwick
red
2 sentences1978In the very recent case of United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 53 L. 1978In the very recent case of United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , 53 L. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1978The defendant next contends that because he was under arrest, and because his car was immobile and about to be towed, there were no exigent circumstances which supported the search; there was no danger that the car might leave the jurisdiction or that anyone might tamper with or remove evidence. [4] Although this court in State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d 399, 410 , 228 N.W.2d 671 (1975), cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), to the effect that "`the word "automobile" is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears,'" it is apparent from the recent 1978Although this court in State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d 399, 410 , 228 N.W.2d 671 (1975), cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), to the effect that “ ‘the word “automobile” is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears,’ ” it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. McDougal
green
2 sentences1978Although this court in State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d 399, 410 , 228 N.W.2d 671 (1975), cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), to the effect that “ ‘the word “automobile” is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears,’ ” it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice. 1978Although this court in State v. McDougal, 68 Wis.2d 399, 410 , 228 N.W.2d 671 (1975), cited Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), to the effect that “ ‘the word “automobile” is not a talisman in whose presence the Fourth Amendment fades away and disappears,’ ” it is apparent from the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the exigency requirement of the automobile exception has been weakened and that only a slight showing will suffice. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Pires
green
2 sentences1976The element of reasonableness is supplied by the compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence.” State v. Pires (1972), 55 Wis.2d 597, 604 , 201 N.W.2d 153 ; State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 194 , 170 N.W.2d 755 . 1976The element of reasonableness is supplied by the compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence.” State v. Pires (1972), 55 Wis.2d 597, 604 , 201 N.W.2d 153 ; State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 194 , 170 N.W.2d 755 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Davidson
green
2 sentences1976The element of reasonableness is supplied by the compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence.” State v. Pires (1972), 55 Wis.2d 597, 604 , 201 N.W.2d 153 ; State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 194 , 170 N.W.2d 755 . 1976The element of reasonableness is supplied by the compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence.” State v. Pires (1972), 55 Wis.2d 597, 604 , 201 N.W.2d 153 ; State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 194 , 170 N.W.2d 755 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.