The purpose of an oath or affirmation is to impress upon the swearing individual an appropriate sense of obligation to tell the truth. The constitutional guarantee that warrant applications be supported by oath or affirmation is satisfied when the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the affiant executes an affidavit in a form calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind with the duty to tell the truth. The constitution does not require that any specific language or procedure be employed in the administration of an oath or affirmation. The oath or affirmation requirement is an issue of substance, not form. State v. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 405 Wis. 2d 1, 982 N.W.2d 45, 19-2184. An anonymous telephone tip that specified that a vehicle was driven by an unlicensed person did not create articulable and reasonable suspicion of illegality justifying an investigatory stop of the auto and driver. 68 Atty. Gen. 347.
When a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that an affiant’s false statement, knowingly or recklessly made, was the basis of the probable cause finding, a hearing must be held. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667 (1978). The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the admission of evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant, issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, later found to be unsupported by probable cause. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). Evidence seized in reliance on a police record incorrectly indicating an outstanding arrest warrant was not subject to suppression when the error was made by court clerk personnel. Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 131 L. Ed. 2d 34 (1995). There is no blanket exception to the knock and announce requirement for executing warrants. To justify a no-knock entry, a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing will be dangerous or futile or will inhibit the effective investigation of a crime must exist. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 137 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1997). When the three occupants of a vehicle in which drugs and cash were found in a legal search all failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the drugs or money, it was a reasonable inference that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the drugs. A reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe one or more of the occupants possessed the drugs, either solely or jointly. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795, 157 L. Ed. 2d 769 (2003). A search warrant that did not describe the items to be seized at all was so obviously deficient that the search conducted pursuant to it was considered to be warrantless. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004). Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest. An arresting officer’s state of mind, except for the facts that the arresting officer knows, is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. A rule that the offense establishing probable cause must be closely related to, and based on the same conduct as, the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of arrest is inconsistent with these principals. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 125 S. Ct. 588, 160 L. Ed. 2d 537 (2004). For a conditioned anticipatory warrant to comply with the 4th amendment’s requirement of probable cause, two prerequisites of probability must be satisfied. It must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, but also that there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur. The triggering condition for an anticipatory search warrant need not be set forth in the warrant itself. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S. Ct. 1494, 164 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2006). Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity, and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the 4th amendment is not violated. Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 127 S. Ct. 1989, 167 L. Ed. 2d 974 (2007). To determine if the “alert” of a drug-detection dog during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle, the state need not present an exhaustive set of records. A probable-cause hearing focusing on a drug-sniffing dog’s alert should proceed much like any other probable-cause hearing. The question—similar to every inquiry into probable cause—is whether all the facts surrounding a dog’s alert, viewed through the lens of common sense, would make a reasonably prudent person think that a search would reveal contraband or evidence of a crime. A sniff is up to snuff when it meets that test. Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 185 L. Ed. 2d 61 (2013). 911 calls are not per se reliable. However, given the technological and regulatory developments in the 911 system, a reasonable officer could conclude that a false tipster would think twice before using such a system. A caller’s use of the 911 system in this case was one of the relevant circumstances that justified the officer’s reliance on the information reported in the 911 call. Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014). A mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold a seizure under the 4th amendment. In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, but a court later determined that a single working brake light was all the law required. Because the officer’s mistake about the brake-light law was reasonable, the stop in this case was lawful. Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 135 S. Ct. 530, 190 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2014). Pretrial detention can violate the 4th amendment not only when it precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal process in a criminal case. The 4th amendment prohibits government officials from detaining a person in the absence of probable cause. That can happen when the police hold someone without any reason before the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But it also can occur when legal process itself goes wrong—when, for example, a judge’s probable-cause determination is predicated solely on a police officer’s false statements. Legal process does not expunge a 4th amendment claim when the process received by the defendant failed to establish what that amendment makes essential for pretrial detention—probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime. Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357, 137 S. Ct. 911, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017). The totality of the circumstances test requires courts to consider the whole picture and to determine whether a reasonable officer could conclude—considering all of the surrounding circumstances, including the plausibility of the explanation itself—that there was a substantial chance of criminal activity. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 138 S. Ct. 577, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018). I,11warrantless search and seizure An officer making an arrest at a suspect’s home pursuant to a warrant, after the suspect opens the door, can arrest for a narcotics violation based on narcotics in plain sight in the room. Schill v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 473, 184 N.W.2d 858 (1971). Police officers properly in an apartment where drugs are discovered may pat down the pockets of a stranger who walks in and may seize a large, hard object felt in order to protect themselves. State v. Chambers, 55 Wis. 2d 289, 198 N.W.2d 377 (1972). After stopping and frisking the defendant properly, discovering several cartridges, the police were justified in looking under the car seat and in the glove compartment for a gun. State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973). When a valid arrest is made without a warrant, the officer may conduct a limited search of the premises. Leroux v. State, 58 Wis. 2d 671, 207 N.W.2d 589 (1973). When an officer, mistakenly believing in good faith that the occupants of a car had committed a crime, stopped the car and arrested the occupants, the arrest was illegal, but a shotgun in plain sight on the back seat could be seized and used in evidence. State v. Taylor, 60 Wis. 2d 506, 210 N.W.2d 873 (1973). When officers stopped a car containing three men meeting the description of robbery suspects within seven minutes after the robbery and found a gun on one, they could properly search the car for other guns and money. State v. Russell, 60 Wis. 2d 712, 211 N.W.2d 637 (1973). Given a valid arrest, a search is not limited to weapons or evidence of a crime, nor need it be directed to or related to the purpose of the arrest, because one who has contraband or evidence of a crime on one’s person travels at the person’s own risk when the person is validly arrested for any reason, hence the reasonableness of a search incident to the arrest no longer depends on the purpose of the search in relation to the object of the arrest. State v. Mabra, 61 Wis. 2d 613, 213 N.W.2d 545 (1974). Under the “open fields” doctrine, evidence that a body was found 450 feet from the defendant’s house during random digging done at the direction of the sheriff acting without a warrant was properly admitted into evidence. Conrad v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 616, 218 N.W.2d 252 (1974). Seizure by police of a large quantity of marijuana from the defendants’ 155-acre farm did not contravene their 4th amendment rights. State v. Gedko, 63 Wis. 2d 644, 218 N.W.2d 249 (1974). The search of the defendant’s wallet after the defendant’s arrest on unrelated charges that led to the discovery of a newspaper article about a crime that, after questioning, the defendant admitted to committing was proper in order to find weapons or contraband that might have been hidden there. State v. Mordeszewski, 68 Wis. 2d 649, 229 N.W.2d 642 (1975). The seizure by police officers of a box of cartridges from under the edge of a couch on which the defendant was resting at the time of the defendant’s arrest was proper under the plain-view doctrine, since if police had a prior justification to be present in a position to see an object in plain view and its discovery was inadvertent, the object may be seized, and the use of a flashlight by one of the officers did not defeat the inadvertence requirement. Sanders v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 242, 230 N.W.2d 845 (1975). A warrantless search of two persons for concealed weapons was reasonable when an armed robbery with a sawed-off shotgun had been committed a short time before by two men, one of whom matched the description given for one of the robbers. Penister v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 94, 246 N.W.2d 115 (1976). The doctrine of exigency is founded upon actions of the police that are considered reasonable. The element of reasonableness is supplied by a compelling need to assist the victim or apprehend those responsible, not the need to secure evidence. West v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 390, 246 N.W.2d 675 (1976). A warrantless search by a probation officer was constitutionally permissible when probable cause existed for the officer to attempt to determine whether the probationer had violated the terms of probation. State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976). The plain view doctrine does not apply if the observation is not made inadvertently or if the officer does not have the right to be in the place from which the observation is made. State v. Monahan, 76 Wis. 2d 387, 251 N.W.2d 421 (1977). Discussing the criteria used as justification for warrantless searches of students by teachers. L.L. v. Circuit Court, 90 Wis. 2d 585, 280 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1979). A warrantless entry under the emergency rule justified a subsequent entry that did not expand the scope or nature of the original entry. La Fournier v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 61, 280 N.W.2d 746 (1979). An investigatory stop-and-frisk for the sole purpose of discovering a suspect’s identity was lawful under the facts of the case. State v. Flynn, 92 Wis. 2d 427, 285 N.W.2d 710 (1979). Furnishing police with the bank records of a depositor who had victimized the bank was not an unlawful search and seizure. State v. Gilbertson, 95 Wis. 2d 102, 288 N.W.2d 877 (Ct. App. 1980). Evidence obtained during a mistaken arrest is admissible as long as the arresting officer acts in good faith and has reasonable articulable grounds to believe that the suspect is the intended arrestee. State v. Lee, 97 Wis. 2d 679, 294 N.W.2d 547 (Ct. App. 1980). A warrantless entry into the defendant’s home was validated by the emergency doctrine when the officer reasonably believed lives were threatened. State v. Kramer, 99 Wis. 2d 306, 298 N.W.2d 568 (1980). The warrantless search of a fisherman’s truck by state conservation wardens under statutory inspection authority was presumptively reasonable. State v. Erickson, 101 Wis. 2d 224, 303 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1981). Under Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978), the warrantless search of an entire building on the morning after a localized fire was reasonable as it was the continuation of the prior night’s investigation that had been interrupted by heat and nighttime circumstances. State v. Monosso, 103 Wis. 2d 368, 308 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1981). A warrantless entry into a home was validated by the emergency doctrine when an official’s reasonable actions were motivated solely by the perceived need to render immediate aid or assistance, not by the need or desire to obtain evidence. State v. Boggess, 115 Wis. 2d 443, 340 N.W.2d 516 (1983). Police having probable cause to believe a vehicle contains criminal evidence may search the vehicle without a warrant or exigent circumstances. State v. Tompkins, 144 Wis. 2d 116, 423 N.W.2d 823 (1988). Fire fighting presents exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry. A fire fighter may contact police to inform them of the presence of illegal possessions in plain view. A subsequent warrantless search and seizure is proper. State v. Gonzalez, 147 Wis. 2d 165, 432 N.W.2d 651 (Ct. App. 1988). A reasonable police inventory search is an exception to the warrant requirement. At issue is whether an inventory is a pretext for an investigative search. State v. Axelson, 149 Wis. 2d 339, 441 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1989). When effecting a lawful custodial arrest of an individual in the individual’s home, a law enforcement officer may conduct a search of closed areas within the immediate area of the arrestee even though the search imposes an infringement on the arrestee’s privacy interests. State v. Murdock, 155 Wis. 2d 217, 455 N.W.2d 618 (1990). Under the circumstances presented, an officer properly conducted an inventory search resulting in the discovery of contraband in a purse left in a police car because the search was conducted pursuant to proper department policy. State v. Weide, 155 Wis. 2d 537, 455 N.W.2d 899 (1990). Police corroboration of innocent details of an anonymous tip may give rise to reasonable suspicion to make a stop under the totality of the circumstances. A suspect’s actions need not be inherently suspicious in and of themselves. State v. Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d 128, 456 N.W.2d 830 (1990). The validity of a “Good Samaritan” stop or entry requires that the officer has the motive only to assist and not to search for evidence, has a reasonable belief that the defendant needs help, and once the entry is made absent probable cause, that objective evidence exists giving rise to the investigation of criminal behavior. State v. Dunn, 158 Wis. 2d 138, 462 N.W.2d 538 (Ct. App. 1990). The reasonableness of a search does not come into question unless a person has a reasonable privacy expectation. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in TDD communications made from the dispatch area of a sheriff’s department. State v. Rewolinski, 159 Wis. 2d 1, 464 N.W.2d 401 (1990). A parolee’s liberty is conditional. A judicially issued warrant is not required for the seizure of an alleged parole violator in the parolee’s home. State v. Pittman, 159 Wis. 2d 764, 465 N.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1990). The evidentiary search of a person not named in a search warrant, but present during the search of a residence reasonably suspected of being a drug house, was reasonable. State v. Jeter, 160 Wis. 2d 333, 466 N.W.2d 211 (Ct. App. 1991). A warrantless search of an apartment for evidence of occupancy when the police reasonably believed the tenant had vacated and the occupants were not legitimately on the premises was not unreasonable. The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment or in property kept there. State v. Whitrock, 161 Wis. 2d 960, 468 N.W.2d 696 (1991). When a convicted defendant is awaiting sentencing for a drug related offense and probation is a sentencing option, the judge may order, without a warrant, probable cause, or individualized suspicion, that the defendant submit to urinalysis to determine if drugs are present. State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992). A blood test not taken in compliance with the implied consent law is admissible if the taking of the sample meets 4th amendment reasonableness standards. Under Schmerber, 384 U.S. 757 (1966), the drawing of a blood sample against a person’s will is reasonable when: 1) drawn incident to an arrest; 2) there is a clear indication that the desired evidence will be found in the blood sample; and 3) exigent circumstances exist. State v. Krause, 168 Wis. 2d 578, 484 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1992). But see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016). The question of whether the forcible extraction of a blood sample is a reasonable search by 4th amendment standards is not limited to whether the force is necessary to accomplish a legitimate police objective. Instead, whether the force used is excessive is determined by an evaluation of whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officers. The court judges the reasonableness of a questioned action by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s 4th amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests and from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. State v. Krause, 168 Wis. 2d 578, 484 N.W.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1992). The exception allowing the warrantless search of automobiles is not extended to a camper trailer unhitched from a towing vehicle. State v. Durbin, 170 Wis. 2d 475, 489 N.W.2d 655 (Ct. App. 1992). A warrantless search of a commercial premises without the owner’s consent when a licensing ordinance provided that the licensed premises “shall be open to inspection at any time” was illegal. State v. Schwegler, 170 Wis. 2d 487, 490 N.W.2d 292 (Ct. App. 1992). The frisk of a person not named in a search warrant during the execution of the warrant was reasonable when the occupants of the residence were very likely to be involved in drug trafficking. Drugs felt in a pocket during the frisk were lawfully seized when the officer had probable cause to believe there was a connection between what was felt and criminal activity. State v. Guy, 172 Wis. 2d 86, 492 N.W.2d 311 (1992). A warrantless protective sweep of a residence incident to an arrest requires the police to have a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the residence harbors an individual posing a danger to the officers. State v. Kruse, 175 Wis. 2d 89, 499 N.W.2d 185 (Ct. App. 1993). Discussing the six-factor analysis for use in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop. State v. King, 175 Wis. 2d 146, 499 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1993). The rule that a judicial determination of probable cause to support a warrantless arrest must be made within 48 hours applies to Wisconsin. The failure to comply did not require suppression of evidence not obtained because of the delay when probable cause to arrest was present. State v. Koch, 175 Wis. 2d 684, 499 N.W.2d 152 (1993). Students have no reasonable privacy expectation in lockers when a school adopts a written policy retaining ownership and possessory control of the lockers. Isiah B. v. State, 176 Wis. 2d 639, 500 N.W.2d 637 (1993). An officer’s step onto the threshold of the defendant’s home constituted an entry subject to constitutional protection. State v. Johnson, 177 Wis. 2d 224, 501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1993). A defendant under lawful arrest has a diminished privacy interest in personal property inventoried by jail authorities, and a warrantless search of the property when there is probable cause to believe it contains evidence is valid. State v. Jones, 181 Wis. 2d 194, 510 N.W.2d 784 (Ct. App. 1993). See also State v. Betterley, 183 Wis. 2d 165, 515 N.W.2d 911 (Ct. App. 1994). A warrantless entry by uniformed officers to make arrests after undercover agents gained permissive entrance to the premises was justified under the consent exception and no exigent circumstances were required. State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 518 N.W.2d 759 (1994). A non-parolee living with a parolee has a legitimate expectation of privacy in shared living quarters, but a warrantless search authorized as a condition of parole can reasonably extend to all areas in which the parolee and non-parolee enjoy common authority. Evidence found in such a search may be used against the non-parolee. State v. West, 185 Wis. 2d 68, 517 N.W.2d 482 (1994). The failure to conduct a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and not grounds for dismissal with prejudice or voiding of a subsequent conviction unless the delay prejudiced the defendant’s right to present a defense. State v. Golden, 185 Wis. 2d 763, 519 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1994). A determination that an area is within a defendant’s immediate control at the time of arrest does not give police authority to generally search the premises. Only a limited search is justified. State v. Angiolo, 186 Wis. 2d 488, 520 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994). The plain view exception applies if the following criteria are met: 1) the officer has prior justification for being present; 2) the evidence is in plain view and its discovery inadvertent; and 3) the seized item and facts known by the officer at the time of seizure provide probable cause to believe there is a connection between a crime and the evidence. State v. Angiolo, 186 Wis. 2d 488, 520 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994). Unlike private homes, warrantless inspections of commercial premises are not necessarily unreasonable. A warrantless inspection of a dairy farm under authority of ss. 93.08, 93.15 (2), and 97.12 (1) and related administrative rules made without prior notice and without the owner being present was not unconstitutional. Because the administrative rules govern operations, equipment, and processes not typically conducted in residential areas, the rules and statutes sufficiently preclude making warrantless searches of residences. Lundeen v. DATCP, 189 Wis. 2d 255, 525 N.W.2d 758 (Ct. App. 1994). An arrest warrant was not legal authority to enter and search the home of a third party based on an officer’s simple belief that the subject of the warrant might be there. The mere fact that the subject could leave was not an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless search when the warrant was a pick-up warrant for failure to pay a traffic fine. State v. Kiper, 193 Wis. 2d 69, 532 N.W.2d 698 (1995). Suppression of evidence is not required when a law enforcement officer obtains evidence outside the officer’s jurisdiction. Any jurisdictional transgression violates the appropriate jurisdiction’s authority, not the defendant’s rights. State v. Mieritz, 193 Wis. 2d 571, 534 N.W.2d 632 (Ct. App. 1995). A warrantless search of a vehicle was constitutional when the defendant fled the vehicle to avoid arrest. The defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. State v. Roberts, 196 Wis. 2d 445, 538 N.W.2d 825 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2583. To find a pat-down search to be reasonable requires the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed, looking at the totality of the circumstances. The officer’s perception of the area as a high-crime area, the time of day, and the suspect’s nervousness are all factors that may be considered. State v. Morgan, 197 Wis. 2d 200, 539 N.W.2d 887 (1995), 93-2089. All occupants of a vehicle in a police-initiated stop are seized and have standing to challenge the lawfulness of the seizure. To establish lawfulness, the state must establish that the police possess reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize someone in the vehicle. State v. Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245 (1996), 95-1595. A probation officer may conduct a warrantless search. That the underlying conviction is subsequently overturned does not retroactively invalidate the search. State v. Angiolo, 207 Wis. 2d 561, 558 N.W.2d 701 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0099. An initial traffic stop is not unlawfully extended by asking the defendant if the defendant has drugs or weapons and requesting permission to search. When there is justification for the initial stop, it is the extension of the stop beyond the point reasonably justified by the stop and not the type of questions asked that render a stop unconstitutional. State v. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-1094. An officer has the right to remain at an arrested person’s elbow at all times. When an officer accompanied a juvenile in the officer’s custody into the juvenile’s house, leaving the juvenile’s “elbow” to enter a bedroom where incriminating evidence was found, monitoring of the juvenile stopped and an unconstitutional search occurred. State v. Dull, 211 Wis. 2d 652, 565 N.W.2d 575 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1744. A threat to the safety of the suspect or others is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances. When conducting the unannounced warrantless entry creates the potential danger, that conduct cannot justify the warrantless entry. State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2052. The likelihood that evidence will be destroyed is an exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry of a residence. The mere presence of contraband does not create exigent circumstances. State v. Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-2052. Detaining a person at the person’s home and transporting the person about one mile to the scene of an accident in which the person was involved was an investigative stop and not an arrest, moved the person within the vicinity of the stop within the meaning of s. 968.24, and was a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0695. But see State v. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, 409 Wis. 2d 34, 995 N.W.2d 266, 22-0540. The warrantless search of the defendant’s purse when it was being returned to the defendant while still in custody was authorized when the search would have been authorized at the time of the arrest and when the return of the purse could have given the defendant access to a weapon or evidence. State v. Wade, 215 Wis. 2d 684, 573 N.W.2d 228 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0193.
/constitution/wi
true
wisconsinconstitution
/constitution/wi/000229/000027/000009
section
true
