State v. Meisenhelder

• Citation: 404 Wis.2d 75,978 N.W.2d 551,2022 WI App 37
• Decision Date: 15 June 2022
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 2021AP708-CR
• Parties: STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Catti J. MEISENHELDER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

404 Wis.2d 75
978 N.W.2d 551
2022 WI App 37

STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Catti J. MEISENHELDER, Defendant-Appellant.^†

Appeal No. 2021AP708-CR

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs: April 14, 2022
Opinion Filed: June 15, 2022

On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Susan E. Alesia, assistant state public defender of Madison.

On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Sonya K. Bice, assistant attorney general, and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general.

Before Neubauer, Grogan and Kornblum, JJ.

GROGAN, J.

404 Wis.2d 77

¶1 Catti J. Meisenhelder appeals from a judgment entered after she pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(g) (2019-20). Meisenhelder contends the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress, which alleged that police lacked probable cause

404 Wis.2d 78

to search a small metal canister on her keychain while searching her purse pursuant to her arrest for retail theft. She believes the search violated the Fourth Amendment¹ because, according to her, the canister was too small to contain a weapon or any evidence of a crime. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

¶2 In July 2019, a Walmart loss prevention officer caught Meisenhelder stealing merchandise. Walmart notified Appleton Police about the retail theft, and Officer Jordan Woelfel and Officer Derek Anderson were dispatched to the store. When the officers arrived, they saw that Walmart loss prevention officers had detained Meisenhelder in the loss prevention office. One of the loss prevention officers reported that Meisenhelder had concealed two items in her purse—a bottle of mouthwash and an eyeliner, worth a total of $18.18—and had attempted to leave the store without paying for them. These two items were on the desk in the office when the police arrived.

¶3 The police told Meisenhelder they would need to search her purse to see if there were any additional stolen items inside, and Meisenhelder consented to the search. While searching the purse, one of the officers found a metal canister about the size of a "12 gauge shotgun shell" attached to her keys. The canister, which was "slightly wider in diameter ... than a 12 gauge shotgun shell" was opaque, making it impossible to view its contents. The officer unscrewed the canister cap and found a bag with suspected methamphetamine inside. Police then read Meisenhelder

404 Wis.2d 79

her Miranda² rights, and she subsequently stated that she believed the substance in the canister was methamphetamine. Police did not find any additional stolen merchandise inside the purse. When asked whether she had any other items on her person the police needed to know about, she gave the police several

978 N.W.2d 554

"dime-sized bags from her back pants pocket[,]" which contained residue suspected to be from methamphetamine. The officers arrested Meisenhelder, and the State charged her with misdemeanor retail theft, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

¶4 Meisenhelder filed a motion seeking to suppress "any and all evidence obtained in violation of her constitutional rights, including but not limited to any controlled substances located in the purple vial-sized container with a screw-on top and any derivative evidence, including all statements made after the unlawful search."³

¶5 The circuit court denied the motion, relying on State v. Sykes , 2005 WI 48, ¶2, 279 Wis. 2d 742, 695 N.W.2d 277, which upheld the search of Sykes’ wallet incident to a lawful arrest. The circuit court here concluded that the search of Meisenhelder's purse was "carried out [as] a valid search incident to arrest[.]" Subsequently, Meisenhelder entered into a plea bargain with the State where she agreed to plead no contest to the possession charge, and the other two charges would be dismissed and read in.

404 Wis.2d 80

¶6 The circuit court accepted Meisenhelder's plea and withheld sentence. It placed her on eighteen months’ probation and allowed her to be discharged early if approved by her agent. As a condition of probation, the court imposed but stayed four months of jail time with Huber release privileges. Judgment was entered. Meisenhelder now appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 An order granting or denying a motion to suppress evidence presents a question of constitutional fact, which requires a two-step analysis on appellate review. State v. Asboth , 2017 WI 76, ¶10, 376 Wis. 2d 644, 898 N.W.2d 541. "First, we review the circuit court's findings of historical fact under a deferential standard, upholding them unless they are clearly erroneous. Second, we independently apply constitutional principles to those facts." State v. Robinson , 2010 WI 80, ¶22, 327 Wis. 2d 302, 786 N.W.2d 463 (internal citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

¶8 Meisenhelder argues that the police did not have probable cause to open the small metal canister attached to her keychain...