A “knock and talk” interview at a private residence that has lost its consensual nature and has effectively become an in-home seizure or constructive entry may trigger 4th amendment scrutiny. When the situation is such that a person would not wish to leave the person’s location, such as the person’s home, the appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. City of Sheboygan v. Cesar, 2010 WI App 170, 330 Wis. 2d 760, 796 N.W.2d 429, 09-3049. The test for exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless seizure is an objective one: whether a police officer under the circumstances known to the officer at the time reasonably believes that delay in procuring a warrant would gravely endanger life or risk destruction of evidence or greatly enhance the likelihood of the suspect’s escape. An arrest was lawful when the urgency reasonably perceived by the officers was compelling and the danger they reasonably perceived for themselves and others if they did not move quickly was substantial. State v. Ayala, 2011 WI App 6, 331 Wis. 2d 171, 793 N.W.2d 511, 09-2690. An officer’s exercise of the bona fide community caretaker function must be reasonable as determined by the court by balancing the public interest or need that is furthered by the officer’s conduct against the degree and nature of the intrusion on the citizen’s constitutional interest. The stronger the public need and the more minimal the intrusion upon an individual’s liberty, the more likely the police conduct will be held to be reasonable. Four factors are considered: 1) the extent of the public’s interest; 2) the attendant circumstances surrounding the search; 3) whether the search or seizure took place in an automobile; and 4) the alternatives that were available to the action taken. State v. Ultsch, 2011 WI App 17, 331 Wis. 2d 242, 793 N.W.2d 505, 10-0895. But see Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 209 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2021). As a general matter, it is unacceptable for a member of the public to enter a home’s attached garage uninvited regardless of whether an overhead or entry door is open. Thus, generally, an attached garage will never be impliedly open to the public, i.e., police entry. There may be an exception to that general rule if, in a given circumstance, it reasonably appears that entry into the attached garage is the least intrusive means of attempting contact with persons inside the home. State v. Davis, 2011 WI App 74, 333 Wis. 2d 490, 798 N.W.2d 902, 10-2191. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), held that in co-habitation cases, if both parties are present, a search is unlawful when one consents but the other expressly refuses to consent. Randolph did not apply when one co-habitant consented and the other did not object. State v. Pirtle, 2011 WI App 89, 334 Wis. 2d 211, 799 N.W.2d 492, 10-1363. Under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper’s observation of the defendant’s furtive movements and visible nervousness, a record of arrests for violent crimes, and a drug delivery arrest that had occurred nearby a short time before the stop constituted specific and articulable facts that, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, created reasonable suspicion and justified a protective search for the officer’s safety. State v. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, 334 Wis. 2d 379, 799 N.W.2d 775, 09-2934. Under circumstances in which: 1) a man in a high-crime area; 2) late at night; 3) wearing a ski mask that covered his face below his eyes; 4) wearing a hoodie; 5) had an ambiguous but “unusual”-appearing encounter with a woman walking by herself, the police reasonably and based on their experience could objectively see that further investigation was warranted to ensure that criminal activity was not afoot. State v. Matthews, 2011 WI App 92, 334 Wis. 2d 455, 799 N.W.2d 911, 10-1712. It was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the leaseholder of a property had the authority to consent to them proceeding up the property’s stairs to look for another tenant who was not present to either consent or refuse consent when: 1) a third non-leaseholder tenant refused to consent; 2) the officers were aware that the tenant granting consent was the leaseholder of the property; and 3) the person refusing consent had not previously lived there and had left the room to wake up the subject of the police inquiry after the officers arrived. State v. Lathan, 2011 WI App 104, 335 Wis. 2d 234, 801 N.W.2d 772, 10-1228. Under Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), a lawful roadside stop “ordinarily” begins when a vehicle is pulled over for a traffic violation and ends when the police no longer have further need to control the scene, at which time the driver and passengers are free to leave. Johnson does not create a bright-line rule that police always have the authority to detain passengers for the duration of a roadside stop. Johnson leaves the door open for exceptions to the general rule that passengers are reasonably detained for the duration of a stop. Nonetheless, the stop in this case was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Salonen, 2011 WI App 157, 338 Wis. 2d 104, 808 N.W.2d 162, 10-2504. The plain view doctrine did not justify opening opaque cylinders that were in plain view, but the contents were not, and the containers, as indicated by their size or shape, could hold a weapon. State v. Sutton, 2012 WI App 7, 338 Wis. 2d 338, 808 N.W.2d 411, 11-0036. If a third party has mutual use of a property and joint access or control for most purposes, then the third party may consent to a search of the property regardless of whether the third party owns the property. While a mere guest in a home may not ordinarily consent to a search of the premises, the analysis is different when the guest is more than a casual visitor but instead has the run of the house. A weekend house guest who was permitted to stay in the home by herself and had the authority to receive people into the home had the authority to permit an officer to enter. Similarly, when the defendant gave his guest permission to use his computer, the guest had the authority to consent to the officer’s search and seizure of that item. State v. Sutton, 2012 WI App 7, 338 Wis. 2d 338, 808 N.W.2d 411, 11-0036. When police have probable cause to arrest before an unlawful entry and warrantless arrest from a defendant’s home, this violation of Payton, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), does not require the suppression of evidence obtained from a defendant outside of the home. This rule applies when the only illegal police conduct is an unlawful entry and arrest in violation of Payton, not when the evidence may be tied to an unlawful search by police. State v. Felix, 2012 WI 36, 339 Wis. 2d 670, 811 N.W.2d 775, 10-0346. Under the totality of the circumstances, police acted reasonably when they conducted an investigatory stop of the vehicle that the defendant was driving based on reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity may be afoot.” The police had the requisite reasonable suspicion primarily based on the reliability of their final informant and the information provided by the informant when the information was supported by the prior tips to police. While the initial tips were of limited reliability, the final informant and the tips had significant indicia of reliability because the informant provided self-identifying information that made the informant more reliable than a truly anonymous informant and the final informant provided details and accurate future predictions that police were able to corroborate. State v. Miller, 2012 WI 61, 341 Wis. 2d 307, 815 N.W.2d 349, 10-0557. Under Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), an individual can retain a legitimate expectation of privacy after a private individual conducts a search. However, additional invasions of that individual’s privacy by a government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search. The officer’s search in this case did not exceed the original search by the private individual who, after discovering and reviewing child pornography, placed it in a duffel bag and invited the officer to view the contents of the bag. State v. Cameron, 2012 WI App 93, 344 Wis. 2d 101, 820 N.W.2d 433, 11-1368. Guzy, 139 Wis. 2d 663 (1987), forged a list of factors to be considered in determining reasonable suspicion that a person or vehicle was the one connected to a reported crime: 1) the particularity of the description of the offender or the vehicle in which the offender fled; 2) the size of the area in which the offender might be found, as indicated by such facts as the elapsed time since the crime occurred; 3) the number of persons about in that area; 4) the known or probable direction of the offender’s flight; 5) observed activity by the particular person stopped; and 6) knowledge or suspicion that the person or vehicle stopped has been involved in other criminality of the type presently under investigation. State v. Rissley, 2012 WI App 112, 344 Wis. 2d 422, 824 N.W.2d 853, 11-1789. The administration of a preliminary breath test by a police officer, at the request and on behalf of a probation agent during a probation meeting in the probation office, for probation purposes and for no independent police purpose, was a probation search, not a police search, and was lawful. State v. Devries, 2012 WI App 119, 344 Wis. 2d 726, 824 N.W.2d 913, 10-0429. The test applied in determining whether an officer has sufficient reasonable suspicion under Terry, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), is objective—“would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate?” Backing away from a police officer is not sufficient objective evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot or that a person is a threat. A person approached by a law enforcement officer need not answer any question put to the person, may decline to listen to the questions, and may go on the person’s way. Naming a movement that would accompany any walking away adds nothing to the calculus except a false patina of objectivity. State v. Pugh, 2013 WI App 12, 345 Wis. 2d 832, 826 N.W.2d 418, 12-0481. Under the totality of the circumstances of this case, when a person came down the staircase between a building’s upper unit and a common entrance and opened the door for the police, identified herself, expressly stated that the person lived in the upper unit, granted consent to search both verbally and in writing, and acted as though the person had access to the landlord by pretending to call the landlord, that person had apparent authority to consent to the warrantless search of the upper unit, and the police were reasonable in reaching the same conclusion. State v. Wheeler, 2013 WI App 53, 347 Wis. 2d 426, 830 N.W.2d 278, 12-1291. A seizure following a “dog sniff” is subject to the Terry, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), test—that a seizure is reasonable only if it is justified at its inception and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Here, unlike in Arias, 2008 WI 84, the dog sniff attendant to the defendant’s seizure occurred after the initial stop had been completed and undisputed facts established that the reasons justifying the initial stop ceased to exist. The continued detention of the defendant to conduct the dog sniff was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the stop. State v. House, 2013 WI App 111, 350 Wis. 2d 478, 837 N.W.2d 645, 12-2414. Permitting Terry, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), stops of a person observed momentarily patting the outside of the person’s clothing when the only additional facts are that the person is in a high crime area and has seen a cruising police car would expand the individualized “reasonable suspicion” requirement so far so as to negate it. State v. Gordon, 2014 WI App 44, 353 Wis. 2d 468, 846 N.W.2d 483, 13-1878. While exigent circumstances may justify entry, the fact that entry has already been made does not necessarily invalidate reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine. In this case, the officer had already stepped into the apartment when the exigent circumstances arose. Whether or not the apartment occupants’ behavior constituted consent to the officer’s entry, so long as the officer was standing in the vicinity of the occupants when the officer received the information that they might possess a backpack with loaded weapons in it, the officer’s search for and seizure of the backpack was, at that moment, justified by exigent circumstances. State v. Kirby, 2014 WI App 74, 355 Wis. 2d 423, 851 N.W.2d 796, 13-0896. When an officer parks near a person’s vehicle, gets out, and knocks on the person’s window, the officer has not necessarily displayed sufficient authority to cause a reasonable person to feel that the person is not free to leave. While a person is not automatically seized by a knock on the window, or even a supplementary request, the seizure inquiry looks at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the officer has effected a detention. County of Grant v. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 356 Wis. 2d 343, 850 N.W.2d 253, 12-1812. Upholding, by a divided court, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s suppression motion arguing that the warrantless obtaining of the defendant’s cell phone’s location data from the defendant’s cell phone provider violated the defendant’s 4th amendment rights. State v. Subdiaz-Osorio, 2014 WI 87, 357 Wis. 2d 41, 849 N.W.2d 748, 10-3016. Fourth amendment jurisprudence has evolved into two seemingly different, but somewhat interrelated, methods of identifying protectable interests relating to the home. One focuses on a person’s expectation of privacy, where a person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The other, known as the intrusion or trespass test, focuses on whether government agents engaged in an unauthorized physical penetration into a constitutionally protected area. Officers in this case conducted an illegal search by trespassing on the defendants’ property when they, without permission, went onto the porch of the defendants’ trailer to peer into a window, had no other reason for being in those areas, and acknowledged that they could not have seen what they saw within the trailer if they had not been standing in the yard or on the porch. State v. Popp, 2014 WI App 100, 357 Wis. 2d 696, 855 N.W.2d 471, 13-1916. Ordinary citizens, even citizens who are subject to diminished privacy interests because they have been detained, have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of their electronic devices. This interest, however, is undercut when the electronic device in question is contraband. In this case, the defendant was prohibited from using a computer. It was irrelevant whether specific images were prohibited by the defendant’s probationary terms or otherwise illegal to possess; the use of computers was itself prohibited, and the agent had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had impermissibly used them. Thus, the probation search of the contents of the defendant’s computers did not violate the 4th amendment or this section. State v. Purtell, 2014 WI 101, 358 Wis. 2d 212, 851 N.W.2d 417, 12-1307. The exigent circumstance exception does not require that officers observe actual destruction of evidence taking place before making entry. Officers do not impermissibly create exigent circumstances merely by knocking on a door and announcing themselves as police. State v. Parisi, 2014 WI App 129, 359 Wis. 2d 255, 857 N.W.2d 472, 14-0474. In light of McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013), the holding in Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529 (1993), that the rapid dissipation of alcohol alone constitutes an exigent circumstance sufficient for law enforcement officers to order a warrantless investigatory blood draw, is no longer an accurate interpretation of the 4th amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The rapid dissipation of alcohol alone no longer constitutes a per se exigent circumstance. Exigent circumstances, sufficient to justify a warrantless investigatory blood draw of a drunk-driving suspect, are to be determined on a case-by-case totality of the circumstances analysis. State v. Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, 359 Wis. 2d 454, 856 N.W.2d 834, 12-0523.