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.
7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Buiegreen2 sentences2019Under the protective sweep exception, incident to an arrest, officers may search “spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). 2019Accordingly, Jennerjohn’s home was not a space “immediately adjoining the place of arrest,” see id., and the protective sweep exception is inapplicable. 10 No. 2018AP1762-CR ¶25 Here, it is undisputed that a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurred when the police entered and searched Jennerjohn’s home. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Blancogreen2 sentences2001We recently addressed the protective sweep doctrine in State v. Blanco, 2000 WI App 119, ¶ 26 , 237 Wis. 2d 395 , 614 N.W.2d 512 . 2001We recently addressed the protective sweep doctrine in State v. Blanco, 2000 WI App 119, ¶ 26 , 237 Wis. 2d 395 , 614 N.W.2d 512 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2021However, even if we were to assume, without deciding, that there were no exigent circumstances warranting this protective sweep, the evidence need not be suppressed because the connection between any “illegal police conduct and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” See Rogers, 315 Wis. 2d 60, ¶21 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Horngrengreen1 sentence2018See Horngren , 238 Wis. 2d 347 , ¶ 20. ¶ 18 Although no controlling set of factors governs a determination of reasonableness under the protective sweep doctrine, "the dominant consideration is the seriousness of the criminal conduct" at issue. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Timothy Burrowsgreen2 sentences2000See United States v. Burrows, 48 F.3d 1011, 1016-18 (7th Cir. 1995). 2000See United States v. Burrows, 48 F.3d 1011, 1016-18 (7th Cir. 1995). | 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. Sanders
green
2 sentences2021Therefore, the court did not find this to be an illegal entry. ¶22 Still, Gant asserts that because he was arrested outside of his home, officers were not permitted to go inside his home to conduct the protective sweep, citing State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, ¶32 , 311 Wis. 2d 257 , 752 N.W.2d 713 (“The protective sweep doctrine applies once law enforcement officers are inside an area, including a home.” (Emphasis added)). 2021Therefore, the court did not find this to be an illegal entry. ¶22 Still, Gant asserts that because he was arrested outside of his home, officers were not permitted to go inside his home to conduct the protective sweep, citing State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, ¶32 , 311 Wis. 2d 257 , 752 N.W.2d 713 (“The protective sweep doctrine applies once law enforcement officers are inside an area, including a home.” (Emphasis added)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.