Following Mitchell, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019), the four factors that the state bears the burden to show that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw are: 1) law enforcement has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a “drunk-driving offense”; 2) the driver is, at pertinent times, unconscious or in a stupor; 3) the driver’s unconscious state or stupor requires that the driver be taken to a hospital or similar facility; and 4) the driver is taken to the hospital or similar facility before law enforcement has a “reasonable opportunity” to administer a standard evidentiary breath test. The burden is on the defendant to show that the defendant’s blood would not have been drawn if police had not been seeking blood alcohol concentration information and to show that law enforcement could not have reasonably judged that a warrant application would interfere with other pressing needs or duties. State v. Richards, 2020 WI App 48, 393 Wis. 2d 772, 948 N.W.2d 359, 17-0043. See also State v. Mitchell, 2022 WI App 31, 404 Wis. 2d 103, 978 N.W.2d 231, 19-1942. Because the natural dissipation of alcohol over time presents a risk that evidence will be destroyed, the passage of time may help support an exigent circumstances determination in a given case. Here, there had already been a significant delay, which occurred through no fault of the police. An objectively reasonable officer would have been concerned that additional delay to obtain a warrant, beyond the five hours that had already elapsed, would have further undermined the probative value of a test, possibly even rendering it inadmissible if an expert was not able to support its probative value. State v. Dieter, 2020 WI App 49, 393 Wis. 2d 796, 948 N.W.2d 431, 18-2269. The reasonable suspicion test for executing a traffic stop is not an exercise in evaluating individual details in isolation. It is the whole picture, evaluated together, that serves as the proper analytical framework. State v. Genous, 2021 WI 50, 397 Wis. 2d 293, 961 N.W.2d 41, 19-0435. A reasonable person being repetitively questioned while the officer retains the person’s driver’s license would not feel free to drive away and thereby terminate the encounter. In this case, it was the officer’s conduct of retaining the driver’s licenses, while repeatedly asking questions that the defendant and the passenger had already answered, that coerced the defendant to remain in the jurisdiction. Also, the officer’s questioning was intended to require them to remain in the jurisdiction so that time would pass and a drug-sniff dog would appear to sniff for drugs. Accordingly, the defendant was seized during the second round of repetitive questions while the officer retained the defendant’s driver’s license. State v. VanBeek, 2021 WI 51, 397 Wis. 2d 311, 960 N.W.2d 32, 19-0447. Although the time it takes to ask a question is measurable, the fact that an inquiry is made does not, in and of itself, create the type of unreasonable burden to make an extension of a traffic stop unlawful for 4th amendment purposes. That notion is true whether the question occurs in the “middle” of a stop versus at the very end of one. State v. Crone, 2021 WI App 29, 398 Wis. 2d 244, 961 N.W.2d 97, 18-1764. Checking for bond conditions is not an ordinary inquiry incidental to the mission of a traffic stop. Officers may check bond conditions while simultaneously performing other mission-related tasks, but they may not prolong a stop to inquire into a motorist’s bond conditions without reasonable suspicion that the motorist is violating a bond condition. State v. Davis, 2021 WI App 65, 399 Wis. 2d 354, 965 N.W.2d 84, 20-0731. The supreme court has stated that, based on the reasonable suspicion of the offense of operating while intoxicated, an officer may request a driver to perform various field sobriety tests. That statement does not require that an officer observe facts suggesting intoxication when administering field sobriety tests upon reasonable suspicion of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. State v. Adell, 2021 WI App 72, 399 Wis. 2d 399, 966 N.W.2d 115, 20-2135. If, during a valid traffic stop, an officer becomes aware of additional suspicious factors that are sufficient to give rise to an articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing an offense or offenses separate and distinct from the acts that prompted the officer’s intervention in the first place, the stop may be extended and a new investigation begun. The validity of the extension is tested in the same manner, and under the same criteria, as the initial stop. In this case, the deputy lawfully extended the traffic stop because the totality of the facts as they unfolded established reasonable suspicion to investigate the offense of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, and the deputy lawfully administered field sobriety tests in furtherance of that investigation because those tests would be likely to support or dispel the deputy’s suspicion. State v. Adell, 2021 WI App 72, 399 Wis. 2d 399, 966 N.W.2d 115, 20-2135. The emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement does not require that officers personally observe indications of an ongoing medical emergency. Reliable and corroborated information from an informant may justify a warrantless search of a home under the emergency aid exception. State v. Ware, 2021 WI App 83, 400 Wis. 2d 118, 968 N.W.2d 752, 20-1559. Courts apply a two-part test in determining whether the emergency aid exception applies. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that: 1) there is an immediate need to provide aid or assistance to a person due to actual or threatened physical injury; and 2) immediate entry into an area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy is necessary in order to provide that aid or assistance. State v. Ware, 2021 WI App 83, 400 Wis. 2d 118, 968 N.W.2d 752, 20-1559. The results of a hospital blood test that were subpoenaed after the circuit court suppressed evidence from an unlawful blood draw were admissible under the independent source doctrine. The state’s decision to subpoena the hospital for the defendant’s medical records was not prompted by the deputy’s unlawful conduct because the state had reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant of operating while intoxicated prior to the deputy’s warrantless blood draw. The fact that the state subpoenaed those records only after the circuit court suppressed the deputy’s unlawful blood draw did not change the independent nature of the state’s suspicions that the defendant’s blood-alcohol concentration was over the legal limit. Furthermore, the evidence discovered through the state’s subpoena—the hospital’s diagnostic blood test—was untainted by the deputy’s unlawful conduct, thus suppressing it would not serve the exclusionary rule’s purpose. State v. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, 401 Wis. 2d 1, 971 N.W.2d 478, 19-1317. Police lack reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop if there are not specific, articulable facts, and all rational inferences that may be drawn from those facts, to suspect that criminal activity is afoot. When a deputy observed an individual wearing black clothing and riding a bicycle, crossing and then leaving publicly-accessible school grounds in the early hours of a Sunday morning, while the state was under the Department of Health Services’ Safer at Home order due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state failed to clear the “low bar” of reasonable suspicion and instead relied on what could be described, at most, as “a mere hunch” of the deputy. That is, the evidence regarding events leading up to the stop failed to establish articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts that could have led a reasonable officer to suspect that the defendant had engaged in criminal activity, was currently doing so, or was about to do so. State v. Meddaugh, 2022 WI App 12, 401 Wis. 2d 134, 972 N.W.2d 181, 21-0939. Lacking a warrant or exigent circumstances, officers had no lawful basis to open the defendant’s hotel room door—even just the few inches they initially could—and peer inside or even speak to the defendant through that opening. Absent the officer’s unlawful opening of the defendant’s door and utilization of that opening, there was no reason to believe the defendant ever would have even gotten out of bed much less been in a position to visibly turn away from the officers at the door. Under the facts of this case, the officers’ forced entry into the room—leading to the discovery of the gun—cannot be legitimized by the defendant’s turning away from the door because the officer’s observation of that action was not lawfully grounded. State v. Bourgeois, 2022 WI App 18, 401 Wis. 2d 489, 973 N.W.2d 818, 20-1808. In this case, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was involved in criminal activity when, in the course of responding within one minute after receiving a ShotSpotter report of gunfire in a residential neighborhood, the officers saw a single suspect near the scene make furtive movements suggesting concealment of a handgun. Looking at the whole picture, as the officers were required to do, they made a well-informed and reasonable inference that the defendant might be the shooter. State v. Nimmer, 2022 WI 47, 402 Wis. 2d 416, 975 N.W.2d 598, 20-0878. The search-incident-to-arrest exception permits police to search items not actually located on the person but also in the area within the arrestee’s reach. The scope of a search incident to arrest is confined to the area from within which the suspect might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. A search may precede an arrest so long as the officer had probable cause to arrest prior to the search. State v. Meisenhelder, 2022 WI App 37, 404 Wis. 2d 75, 978 N.W.2d 551, 21-0708. A “knock and talk” investigation is not a search but instead is an investigative technique premised on the implicit license that a visitor, or neighbor, would have with regard to entering one’s constitutionally-protected curtilage. In limited scenarios, the implicit license may extend to an alternative approach to the house or back entryway depending on the facts of a case. However, in this case, the officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s fenced-in backyard was not a valid knock and talk investigation and therefore violated the 4th amendment. The backyard was surrounded by a tall, solid wooden fence, and, even though the gate to the backyard was open, it was blocked by a large garbage can. It is hard to believe that a private citizen in the alley would consider the fence, together with the garbage can impeding the opening in the fence, as an invitation to approach the side door of the unattached garage. State v. Wilson, 2022 WI 77, 404 Wis. 2d 623, 982 N.W.2d 67, 20-1014. The 4th amendment requires a police officer to have particularized reasonable suspicion that a crime or non-criminal traffic violation took place before performing a traffic stop. Reasonable suspicion must be founded on concrete, particularized facts warranting suspicion of a specific individual, not inchoate and unparticularized suspicions or hunches. In this case, a stop based on the generic description of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle recently seen driving erratically in the area fell short of that threshold. State v. Richey, 2022 WI 106, 405 Wis. 2d 132, 983 N.W.2d 617, 21-0142. In this case, the defendant, a detective with the county sheriff’s department, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the defendant’s Dropbox account. Although it was established using the defendant’s county email address, the defendant paid to create the private account, the account was password protected and accessible through the defendant’s private devices, and the account was not stored on county property. In addition, although the defendant’s account was held by Dropbox, an independent entity, the defendant did not grant a third party access to the password or the account when the defendant used the account to share specific documents with third parties. Thus, law enforcement engaged in a search of the defendant’s account within the meaning of the 4th amendment. State v. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4, 405 Wis. 2d 716, 985 N.W.2d 123, 21-1767. A Dropbox account is most reasonably comparable to a modern-day version of a container used to store personal documents and effects. It is well established that individuals generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy in locked or closed containers, which are comparable to password-protected Internet-based accounts. State v. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4, 405 Wis. 2d 716, 985 N.W.2d 123, 21-1767. In this case, the officer seized the defendant at the defendant’s home under the 4th amendment when the officer denied the defendant’s request to terminate the encounter while standing in the doorway of the defendant’s home. There is no reasonable suspicion exception to the warrant requirement under the 4th amendment for a person’s seizure in the person’s home or curtilage. State v. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, 409 Wis. 2d 34, 995 N.W.2d 266, 22-0540. A canine sniff of the exterior of a vehicle is not a search within the 4th amendment. The occupant of a vehicle has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the air space surrounding a vehicle that the occupant is occupying in a public place. However, an individual has a property interest in the interior of a vehicle under the common-law trespassory test, and a canine entry into the vehicle constitutes a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment. State v. Campbell, 2024 WI App 17, 411 Wis. 2d 439, 5 N.W.3d 870, 20-1813. Under the so called “instinct exception” to the 4th amendment’s warrant requirement, canine searches that naturally extend into a vehicle during a traffic stop are constitutional if the canine conducts the search “instinctively” and without an officer’s direction, assistance, or encouragement. Even if the instinct exception were to be recognized in this state, the exception did not apply to the canine’s searches in this case. The canine did not instinctively enter the defendant’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door. State v. Campbell, 2024 WI App 17, 411 Wis. 2d 439, 5 N.W.3d 870, 20-1813. When a driver was stopped because of expired license plates, a police order to get out of the car was reasonable and a subsequent “pat down” based on an observed bulge under the driver’s jacket resulted in the legal seizure of an unlicensed revolver. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977). A burning building clearly presents an exigency rendering a warrantless entry reasonable, and fire officials need no warrant to remain in a building for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the fire after it is extinguished. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 (1978). The warrantless installation of a pen register, that recorded telephone numbers called but not the contents of the calls, did not violate the 4th amendment. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S. Ct. 2577, 61 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1979). An officer who accompanied an arrestee to the arrestee’s residence to obtain identification properly seized contraband in plain view. Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S. Ct. 812, 70 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1982). Officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and who have probable cause to believe contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle as thorough as could be authorized by warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982). When an officer, after stopping a defendant’s car at a routine driver’s license checkpoint, saw a tied-off party balloon in plain sight, the officer had probable cause to believe the balloon contained an illicit substance. Hence, a warrantless seizure of the balloon was legal. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S. Ct. 1535, 75 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1983). A warrantless search by arson investigators of the defendant’s fire-damaged home that was not a continuation of an earlier search was unconstitutional. Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S. Ct. 641, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477 (1984). When a damaged shipping package was examined by company employees who discovered white powder, a subsequent warrantless field test by police was constitutional. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S. Ct. 1652, 80 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1984). The warrantless, nighttime entry of the defendant’s home for arrest for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense was not justified under the “hot pursuit” doctrine or the preservation of evidence doctrine. Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732 (1984). School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student. The legality of the search depends on the reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the search. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985). When officers were entitled to seize packages in a vehicle and could have searched them immediately without a warrant, a warrantless search of the packages three days later was reasonable. United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 105 S. Ct. 881, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (1985). The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when an officer reasonably relies upon a statute allowing a warrantless administrative search that was subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S. Ct. 1160, 94 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1987). A protective sweep of a residence in conjunction with an arrest is permissible if police reasonably believe that the area harbors an individual posing a danger to officers or others. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 108 L. Ed. 2d 276 (1990). For a seizure of a person to occur, there must either be an application of force, however slight, or when force is absent, submission to an officer’s “show of authority.” California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 113 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1991). A determination of probable cause made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest generally meets the promptness requirement. If a hearing is held more than 48 hours following the arrest, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate an emergency or extraordinary circumstances. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991). There shall be one rule governing all automobile searches. The police may search the car and all containers within it without a warrant when they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained in either. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 114 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1991). If during a lawful weapons pat down an officer feels an object whose contours or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of privacy beyond that already authorized. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 124 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1993). Persons observed through a window in a home where they were not overnight guests but were present for a short period to engage in a primarily commercial illegal drug transaction, had no expectation of privacy in the home and the observation of those persons was not a constitutionally prohibited search. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998). When there is probable cause to search a vehicle for contraband, officers may examine containers in the vehicle without a showing of individualized probable cause for each container. The container may be searched whether or not its owner is present as a passenger, or otherwise, because it may contain contraband that the officers reasonably believe is in the car. Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 119 S. Ct. 1297, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999). Police need not obtain a warrant before seizing an automobile from a public place when there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle is forfeitable contraband. Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559, 119 S. Ct. 1555, 143 L. Ed. 2d 748 (1999). The exception to the requirement of a warrant for automobiles does not require a separate finding of exigency, in addition to a finding of probable cause. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999). When there is probable cause to search a motor vehicle, the search is not unreasonable if the search is based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, although a warrant was not obtained. No separate finding of exigent circumstances is required. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 144 L. Ed. 2d 442 (1999). An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun, without more, is insufficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of a person. The tip must bear indicia of reliability. Reasonable suspicion requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of criminal activity, not just in its tendency to identify a person. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S. Ct. 1375, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2000). Stopping vehicles at highway checkpoints without any individualized suspicion to interdict illegal drugs was an unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment because the primary purpose was to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, unlike checkpoints to check for drunk driving or illegal immigrants. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S. Ct. 447, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000). The police acted reasonably when, with probable cause to believe that the defendant had hidden drugs in his home, they prevented the man from entering the home for about two hours until a search warrant could be obtained. Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 121 S. Ct. 946, 148 L. Ed. 2d 838 (2001). A state hospital could not test maternity patients for cocaine and then turn the results over to law enforcement authorities without patient consent. The interest of using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine does not justify a departure from the rule that a nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a warrant. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S. Ct. 1281, 149 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2001). If an officer has probable cause to believe a person has committed even a very minor criminal offense that does not breach the peace, the officer may, without violating the 4th amendment, arrest the offender without the need to balance the circumstances involved in the particular situation. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 149 L. Ed. 2d 549 (2001). Obtaining, by sense-enhancing technology like infrared imaging, information regarding the interior of a home that could otherwise not be obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area is a search presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 150 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2001). A warrantless search of a probationer’s residence founded on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and authorized as a condition of probation was reasonable. Such a search is not restricted to monitoring whether the probationer is complying with probation restrictions. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 122 S. Ct. 587, 151 L. Ed. 2d 497 (2001). Police officers may approach bus riders at random to ask questions and to request consent to search luggage without advising the passengers of their right to not cooperate. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 122 S. Ct. 2105, 153 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2002). A school district policy of requiring all participants in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing was a reasonable means of furthering the district’s interest in preventing drug use among students and was not an unreasonable search. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002). A highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run was reasonable. The arrest of a drunk driver arrested when his vehicle swerved nearly hitting an officer at the checkpoint was constitutional. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004). When a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant of an automobile, the 4th amendment allows the officer to search the passenger compartment of that vehicle as a contemporaneous incident of arrest whether the officer makes contact with the occupant while the occupant is inside the vehicle, or when the officer first makes contact with the arrestee after the latter has exited the vehicle. Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127, 158 L. Ed. 2d 905 (2004). The principles of Terry, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed 2d 292 (2004). The 4th amendment does not require reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify using a drug-detection dog to sniff a vehicle during a legitimate traffic stop. The use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (2004). Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. An action is reasonable under the 4th amendment, regardless of the individual officer’s state of mind, as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006). Warrantless arrests for crimes committed in the presence of an arresting officer are reasonable under the U.S. Constitution, and while states are free to regulate such arrests however they desire, state restrictions do not alter the 4th amendment’s protections. Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008). In a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), condition—a lawful investigatory stop—is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009). Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), does not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle. Police are authorized to search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. Consistent with Thornton, 541 U.S. 615 (2004), circumstances unique to the automobile context justify a search incident to arrest when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009). The T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), concern to limit a school search to a reasonable scope requires reasonable suspicion of danger or a resort to hiding evidence of wrongdoing in underwear before a searcher can reasonably make the quantum leap from a search of outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts. The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions. Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S. Ct. 2633, 174 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2009). A government employer had the right, under the circumstances of the case, to read text messages sent and received on a pager the employer owned and issued to an employee. The privacy of the messages was not protected by the ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” found in the 4th amendment. Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable. Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S. Ct. 2619, 177 L. Ed. 2d 216 (2010). Warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the 4th amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement. The exigent circumstances rule justifies a warrantless search when the conduct of the police preceding the exigency is reasonable in the same sense. When the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the 4th amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed. Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011). The government’s installation of a global-positioning-system (GPS) device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a “search.” United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 132 S. Ct. 945, 181 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2012). Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time the action was taken. When an alleged 4th amendment violation involves a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner. There is a narrow exception allowing suit when it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535, 132 S. Ct. 1235, 182 L. Ed. 2d 47 (2012). Generally, every detainee who will be admitted to the general jail population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed. Undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from these invasive procedures absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband. Deference must be given to the officials in charge of the jail unless there is substantial evidence demonstrating their response to the situation is exaggerated. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318, 132 S. Ct. 1510, 182 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2012). The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. A spatial constraint defined by the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched is therefore required for detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant. Limiting the rule in Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), to the area in which an occupant poses a real threat to the safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures that the scope of the detention incident to a search is confined to its underlying justification. Once an occupant is beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched, the search-related law enforcement interests are diminished and the intrusiveness of the detention is more severe. Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2013). Using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the 4th amendment. A police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do. But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013). Natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases. Consistent with general 4th amendment principles, exigency in this context must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013). Police officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting a search of the information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014). In light of Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), and Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), it follows that a state conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person’s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual’s movements. That conclusion, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the program’s constitutionality. The 4th amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306, 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015). A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures. A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015). The attenuation doctrine applies when an officer makes an unconstitutional investigatory stop; learns during that stop that the suspect is subject to a valid arrest warrant; and proceeds to arrest the suspect and seize incriminating evidence during a search incident to that arrest. The evidence the officer seized as part of the search incident to arrest is admissible because the officer’s discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized incident to arrest. Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 195 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2016). A breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. As in all cases involving reasonable searches incident to arrest, a warrant is not needed in this situation. The 4th amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. The impact of breath tests on privacy is slight, and the need for blood alcohol content testing is great. Blood tests are significantly more intrusive, and their reasonableness must be judged in light of the availability of the less invasive alternative of a breath test. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed 2d 560 (2016). The automobile exception to the 4th amendment does not permit a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter the curtilage of a home in order to search a vehicle parked therein. Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 201 L. Ed. 2d 9 (2018).
/constitution/wi
true
wisconsinconstitution
/constitution/wi/000229/000027/000268
section
true
