exigent circumstances exception in Wisconsin

2026One exception, relevant to the facts of this case, is exigent circumstances, i.e., “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable.” Id. at 148-49 (citation omitted); see also State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18, ¶23 , 373 Wis. 2d 468 , 893 N.W.2d 812 (“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” (citation omitted)). ¶8 “Alcoho

2022One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which allows warrantless searches “to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.” Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013). ¶17 Whether exigent circumstances justify a blood draw is an objective determination based on what the officer knew at the time.

2022“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” Id. ¶47 Under this exception, “a warrantless search does not violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights if: (1) the government can show that there is probable cause to believe that ‘evidence of a crime will be found’; and (2) there are exigent circumstances.” State v. Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, ¶70 , 357 Wis. 2d 41 , 849 N.W.2d 748 (citing State v. Hughes,

2022“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” Id. ¶47 Under this exception, “a warrantless search does not violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights if: (1) the government can show that there is probable cause to believe that ‘evidence of a crime will be found’; and (2) there are exigent circumstances.” State v. Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, ¶70 , 357 Wis. 2d 41 , 849 N.W.2d 748 (citing State v. Hughes,

2016See Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013) (explaining that the curtilage "enjoys [the same] protection as part of the home itself"); see also State v. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, ¶35 , 366 Wis. 2d 64 , 873 N.W.2d 502 (noting that a single family home's attached garage is curtilage). 3 No. 2014AP304-CR.rgb ¶144 Calling what happened here "hot pursuit" stretches that term too far. "[A]pplication of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense, such as the kind at issue in this

2016See Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013) (explaining that the curtilage "enjoys [the same] protection as part of the home itself"); see also State v. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, ¶35 , 366 Wis. 2d 64 , 873 N.W.2d 502 (noting that a single family home's attached garage is curtilage). 3 No. 2014AP304-CR.rgb ¶144 Calling what happened here "hot pursuit" stretches that term too far. "[A]pplication of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense, such as the kind at issue in this

2022“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” Id. ¶47 Under this exception, “a warrantless search does not violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights if: (1) the government can show that there is probable cause to believe that ‘evidence of a crime will be found’; and (2) there are exigent circumstances.” State v. Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, ¶70 , 357 Wis. 2d 41 , 849 N.W.2d 748 (citing State v. Hughes,

2021Nevertheless, we briefly address the issue as it provides foundation for the exigent circumstances analysis. ¶12 “The quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause to search is a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶21 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (citation omitted); see also Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302, ¶3 (concluding officers had probable cause to search because evidence of illegal drug activity “would probably be found” in the place to be searched).

2026See State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶31 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 (applying the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment).

2026See State v. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, ¶31 , 359 Wis. 2d 421 , 857 N.W.2d 120 (applying the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment).

2022Referring to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71 (1966)—in which the Court held that the exigent circumstances doctrine applied to a warrantless blood draw on an intoxicated driver involved in a car accident because of pressing duties related to that accident taking priority over applying for a warrant—the Mitchell Court continued, “Just as the ramifications of a car accident pushed Schmerber over the line into exigency, so does the condition of an unconscious driver bring his blood draw under the exception.” Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. at 2538 (emphasis added).2 ¶7 Ultimately, the Mitchell

2014In Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw performed incident to a lawful arrest is constitutional only where three conditions are met: (1) the police have a "clear indication"9 that evidence of intoxication will be found in the blood; (2) exigent circumstances exist; and (3) the method chosen to draw the blood is a reasonable one that is performed in a reasonable manner. ¶35 Regarding the second prong of Schmerber's test, we note that the exigent circumstances doctrine is an exception to the warrant

2017Even if the challenge initially meets with success, it ultimately loses because of an asserted subsequent consent, or community caretaker exception or inevitable discovery rule, or whatever.3 3 Fourth Amendment challenges in criminal cases include: State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18 , 373 Wis. 2d 468 , 893 N.W.2d 812 (a warrantless blood draw was constitutional under the exigent circumstances exception); State v. Kozel, 2017 WI 3 , 373 Wis. 2d 1 , 889 N.W.2d 423 (a warrantless blood draw was lawful because the EMT who drew the blood was acting under a physician's direction, the blood was drawn in a co

2017Even if the challenge initially meets with success, it ultimately loses because of an asserted subsequent consent, or community caretaker exception or inevitable discovery rule, or whatever.3 3 Fourth Amendment challenges in criminal cases include: State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18 , 373 Wis. 2d 468 , 893 N.W.2d 812 (a warrantless blood draw was constitutional under the exigent circumstances exception); State v. Kozel, 2017 WI 3 , 373 Wis. 2d 1 , 889 N.W.2d 423 (a warrantless blood draw was lawful because the EMT who drew the blood was acting under a physician's direction, the blood was drawn in a co

2026Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840, 857 (2019). 8 No. 2025AP811 of the exigent circumstances exception, the court left intact Wisconsin’s ICL.

2022Referring to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71 (1966)—in which the Court held that the exigent circumstances doctrine applied to a warrantless blood draw on an intoxicated driver involved in a car accident because of pressing duties related to that accident taking priority over applying for a warrant—the Mitchell Court continued, “Just as the ramifications of a car accident pushed Schmerber over the line into exigency, so does the condition of an unconscious driver bring his blood draw under the exception.” Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. at 2538 (emphasis added).2 ¶7 Ultimately, the Mitchell

2016See Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013) (explaining that the curtilage "enjoys [the same] protection as part of the home itself"); see also State v. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, ¶35 , 366 Wis. 2d 64 , 873 N.W.2d 502 (noting that a single family home's attached garage is curtilage). 3 No. 2014AP304-CR.rgb ¶144 Calling what happened here "hot pursuit" stretches that term too far. "[A]pplication of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense, such as the kind at issue in this

2016See Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (2013) (explaining that the curtilage "enjoys [the same] protection as part of the home itself"); see also State v. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, ¶35 , 366 Wis. 2d 64 , 873 N.W.2d 502 (noting that a single family home's attached garage is curtilage). 3 No. 2014AP304-CR.rgb ¶144 Calling what happened here "hot pursuit" stretches that term too far. "[A]pplication of the exigent-circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense, such as the kind at issue in this

2002We begin by observing that a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw from a person arrested on probable cause for a drunk driving offense is constitutional based on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment even if the person offers to submit to a chemical test other than the blood test chosen by law enforcement provided that the blood draw complies with the factors enumerated in State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993). 4 State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, ¶ 3 , 255 Wis. 2d 98 , 648 N.W.2d 385 . *926 ¶ 7.

2002We begin by observing that a warrantless nonconsensual blood draw from a person arrested on probable cause for a drunk driving offense is constitutional based on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment even if the person offers to submit to a chemical test other than the blood test chosen by law enforcement provided that the blood draw complies with the factors enumerated in State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 , 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993). 4 State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97, ¶ 3 , 255 Wis. 2d 98 , 648 N.W.2d 385 . *926 ¶ 7.

2026One exception, relevant to the facts of this case, is exigent circumstances, i.e., “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable.” Id. at 148-49 (citation omitted); see also State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18, ¶23 , 373 Wis. 2d 468 , 893 N.W.2d 812 (“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” (citation omitted)). ¶8 “Alcoho

2026One exception, relevant to the facts of this case, is exigent circumstances, i.e., “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable.” Id. at 148-49 (citation omitted); see also State v. Howes, 2017 WI 18, ¶23 , 373 Wis. 2d 468 , 893 N.W.2d 812 (“One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists.” (citation omitted)). ¶8 “Alcoho

2017"One exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances doctrine, which holds that a warrantless search complies with the Fourth Amendment if the need for a search is urgent and insufficient time to obtain a warrant exists." Tullberg, 359 Wis. 2d 421, ¶30 . ¶24 "There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances . . . 1) hot pursuit of a suspect, 2) a threat to the safety of a suspect or others, 3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and 4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee." Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶29 .

2014Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶40 .37 ¶78 Richter demonstrates that reasonableness is at the center of the exigent circumstances analysis, and in the present case, it was reasonable for the Kenosha police to believe that a potentially armed homicide suspect created an exigent threat to the safety of others.

2026State v. Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, ¶34 , 359 Wis. 2d 454 , 856 N.W.2d 834 . ¶10 This case comes before us on a challenge to the denial of Taff’s motion to suppress.

2014Rather, Kennedy keeps the issue alive (see Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, ¶¶6, 34 ), declaring that the court assumes, 17 Majority op., ¶46. 8 No. 2011AP1673-CRNM.ssa "without deciding, that the warrantless investigatory blood draw performed on Kennedy was not supported by exigent circumstances." Kennedy intimates that exigent circumstances might very well have existed by declaring that "[o]ur holding in this case must not be read to affirmatively conclude that exigent circumstances did not support the warrantless investigatory blood draw . . . ."18 Kennedy seems to be champing at the bit to determine

2020But as explained above, the United States Supreme Court had the 22 Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 (“Nothing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not.”). 23 The State references the following passage from Birchfield: “Our prior opinions have referred approvingly to the general concept of implied-consent laws that impose civil penalties and evidentiary consequences on motorists who refuse to comply.

2017Referring to McNeely, the Court explained that "[n]othing prevents the police from seeking a warrant for a blood test when there is sufficient time to do so in the particular circumstances or from relying on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when there is not." Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 . ¶150 If the United States Supreme Court refuses to categorically permit a warrantless blood draw premised on the well-established search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, a blood draw based on a statutorily imputed implied consent surely cannot pass mus

2021See State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460 , 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997).

2021See State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460 , 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997).

2016See State v. Jennifer Parisi, 2014 WI App 129, ¶ 12 , 359 Wis. 2d 255 , 857 N.W.2d 472 ("The exigent circumstances exception . . . does not require that officers observe actual destruction of evidence ....

2016See State v. Jennifer Parisi, 2014 WI App 129, ¶ 12 , 359 Wis. 2d 255 , 857 N.W.2d 472 ("The exigent circumstances exception . . . does not require that officers observe actual destruction of evidence ....

2021Nevertheless, we briefly address the issue as it provides foundation for the exigent circumstances analysis. ¶12 “The quantum of evidence required to establish probable cause to search is a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶21 , 233 Wis. 2d 280 , 607 N.W.2d 621 (citation omitted); see also Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302, ¶3 (concluding officers had probable cause to search because evidence of illegal drug activity “would probably be found” in the place to be searched).

2014To establish probable cause for a search, the government must show that there is a "'fair probability' that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id., ¶21 (citation omitted). ¶71 The probable cause standard also has been employed when there is "probable cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction for a particular offense." State v. Henderson, 2001 WI 97, ¶19 , 245 32 When the exigent circumstances exception applies, a citizen's privacy right "must give way to the compelling public interest in effective law enfo

2016See Tullberg, 359 Wis. 2d 421, ¶31 ; State v. Faust, 2004 WI 99, ¶10 , 274 Wis. 2d 183 , 682 N.W.2d 371 . "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement." Foster, 360 Wis. 2d 12, ¶32 . 10 "[T]his court interprets [these] two constitutional provisions in concert." State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 , ¶18 n.9, 255 Wis. 2d 98 , 648 N.W.2d 385 (citations omitted). 13 No. 2014AP1267-CR ¶29 The State argues, and the circuit court below agreed, that the warrantless search in this case was justified under the exigent circumsta

2016See Tullberg, 359 Wis. 2d 421, ¶31 ; State v. Faust, 2004 WI 99, ¶10 , 274 Wis. 2d 183 , 682 N.W.2d 371 . "[W]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement." Foster, 360 Wis. 2d 12, ¶32 . 10 "[T]his court interprets [these] two constitutional provisions in concert." State v. Krajewski, 2002 WI 97 , ¶18 n.9, 255 Wis. 2d 98 , 648 N.W.2d 385 (citations omitted). 13 No. 2014AP1267-CR ¶29 The State argues, and the circuit court below agreed, that the warrantless search in this case was justified under the exigent circumsta

2020The circuit court held a hearing and denied Hawley’s motions, appearing to rely on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.2 See, e.g., State v. Parisi, 2016 WI 10, ¶¶29, 48-49 , 367 Wis. 2d 1 , 875 N.W.2d 619 .

2020The circuit court held a hearing and denied Hawley’s motions, appearing to rely on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.2 See, e.g., State v. Parisi, 2016 WI 10, ¶¶29, 48-49 , 367 Wis. 2d 1 , 875 N.W.2d 619 .

2021However, in Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 462 (2011), the Supreme Court clarified that the exigent circumstances exception applies “when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

2018King, 563 U.S. at 469-70 . 32 No. 2016AP1609-CR However, these generalized concerns for safety and risk of flight are not enough to give rise to exigent circumstances.56 ¶93 The test is whether there are objective facts known to the officer that would reasonably lead him to believe that the delay caused by obtaining a warrant would gravely endanger life or greatly enhance the likelihood of the subject's escape.57 Finding the existence of exigent circumstances in the instant case would allow the exigent circumstances exception to swallow the warrant requirements of the United States and Wiscons