State v. Edgeberg, No. 94-0527-CR
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | LaROCQUE |
| Citation | 188 Wis.2d 339,524 N.W.2d 911 |
| Decision Date | 18 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-0527-CR |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kris O. EDGEBERG, Defendant-Appellant. |
Page 911
v.
Kris O. EDGEBERG, Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion Released Oct. 18, 1994.
Opinion Filed Oct. 18, 1994.
Page 913
Before CANE, P.J., and LaROCQUE and MYSE, JJ.
LaROCQUE, Judge.
Kris Edgeberg appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to manufacture or deliver. See § 161.14(4)(t) and 161.41(1)(h)(1), STATS. Edgeberg asserts that this court should reverse the trial court decision denying Edgeberg's suppression motion. Edgeberg claims the search warrant pursuant to which the evidence was found was based on police observations made during an unlawful police entry into Edgeberg's home. Because we conclude that the police observations did not constitute a search under the plain view doctrine, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
The essential facts are not in dispute. On June 15, 1990, a police officer on patrol was dispatched to investigate a complaint about a barking dog. Upon arrival in the neighborhood, the officer stopped his squad car to listen for the barking. The officer was approached by a person who stated that the barking dog lived in a nearby house and pointed to the house at which the dog was located, Edgeberg's residence.
The officer drove to the house and approached a porch or vestibule-like addition to the house, which, [188 Wis.2d 343] because of traffic patterns on the lawn, appeared to the officer to be the main entrance to the house. As he approached the house, the officer observed a large dog in the backyard. As the officer approached, the dog was barking.
Photographs indicate that there was a wooden screen door at the entrance to the porch. The wooden screen door opened with a lightweight latch. The door could be locked from the inside but was unlocked. Edgeberg acknowledged that a visitor would have to pass through two doors before entering "the living quarters of the house" and that the interior wooden door was "a second door to get into the house"; he acknowledged that the porch has an outside door and then an inside door that "leads into the residence." He also acknowledged that "it's about six feet into that enclosure before you're at the front door of the residence." The second door was flush with the original exterior wall of the house. This door was made of wood, had three windows, and led directly to the living area. Edgeberg's father, the owner of the house, identified the wooden door as the "front" door. There was no doorbell at either door. Edgeberg's washer and dryer and work clothes were inside the porch. 1
The officer testified that looking through the screen of the outside door, he saw the inner wooden door "immediately inside." He testified that in the course of his duties he had encountered porches similar to Edgeberg's. He said it was community practice for [188 Wis.2d 344] visitors to knock on the main front door of houses with porches similar to Edgeberg's. He testified to his general procedure when approaching a house with such a porch, and stated that if he can see through the exterior door, and can see another door that appears to lead into the living room, and if that interior door is open, he knocks on the outside door; if the exterior door is closed and it is "obviously a porch type area," he enters the porch and knocks on the door that appears to lead to the living area. The officer also testified that although there were a washer and dryer with items stacked on them, the appliances appeared nonfunctional and the work clothes were stacked with other items he thought were "debris." He stated that he did not think by entering the porch he was entering anyone's "private space." 2
Page 914
The officer opened the screen door, entered the porch and knocked on the inner wooden door. As he knocked, he looked through the window of the door into the house and saw marijuana plants growing in flowerpots against the living room wall opposite. Based on this observation, the officer obtained a search warrant. The next day, with the search warrant, the police seized marijuana, the marijuana plants and other contraband from Edgeberg's home.
Whether a police officer's conduct violates the fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is a question of law this court [188 Wis.2d 345] reviews without deference to the trial court. State v. Woods, 117 Wis.2d 701, 712, 345 N.W.2d 457, 463 (1984). The exclusionary rule applies only to evidence seized as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tierney, Docket No. 252185.
...expectation of privacy in his porch than in his residence proper. Id. at 802, 224 Ill.Dec. 793, 682 N.E.2d 354. In State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911 (1994), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a porch or vestibule-t......
-
State v. Carroll, No. 2007AP1378-CR.
...who rightfully is in a position to have that view is subject to valid seizure and may be introduced into evidence. State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 345, 524 N.W.2d 911 (Ct.App.1994) (citing State v. Bell, 62 Wis.2d 534, 540, 215 N.W.2d 535 (1974)). In light of those principles, we examine......
-
State v. Knapp, No. 00-2590-CR.
...were not required to "knock and announce" until they reached the upstairs apartment door. See, e.g., State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis. 2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911 (Ct. App. 1994) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in an unlocked porch that contained few private possessions). ¶ 235. For th......
-
State v. Breuer, No. 96-1802
...respect to a certain area is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique facts of each particular situation. State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911, 915 The correct test of legitimacy is not whether the individual has chosen to conceal some private activity but "whe......
-
People v. Tierney, Docket No. 252185.
...expectation of privacy in his porch than in his residence proper. Id. at 802, 224 Ill.Dec. 793, 682 N.E.2d 354. In State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911 (1994), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a porch or vestibule-t......
-
State v. Carroll, No. 2007AP1378-CR.
...who rightfully is in a position to have that view is subject to valid seizure and may be introduced into evidence. State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 345, 524 N.W.2d 911 (Ct.App.1994) (citing State v. Bell, 62 Wis.2d 534, 540, 215 N.W.2d 535 (1974)). In light of those principles, we examine......
-
State v. Knapp, No. 00-2590-CR.
...375 officers were not required to "knock and announce" until they reached the upstairs apartment door. See, e.g., State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis. 2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911 (Ct. App. 1994) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in an unlocked porch that contained few private possessions). ¶ 235. For......
-
State v. Breuer, No. 96-1802
...respect to a certain area is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique facts of each particular situation. State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis.2d 339, 524 N.W.2d 911, 915 The correct test of legitimacy is not whether the individual has chosen to conceal some private activity but "whether ......