State v. Sanders

Decision Date09 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. 2006AP2060-CR.,2006AP2060-CR.
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Dwight M. SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner the cause was argued by Anne C. Murphy, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general.

For the defendant-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Patrick M. Donnelly, assistant state public defender.

¶ 1 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J

The State seeks review of a published court of appeals decision reversing an order and judgment of the Circuit Court for Racine County, Dennis J. Barry, Judge.1 The circuit court denied defendant Dwight M. Sanders' motions to suppress both physical evidence and statements that law enforcement officers obtained following a warrantless entry into the defendant's home and two subsequent warrantless searches of the defendant's bedroom. The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver as a second offense and as a habitual offender contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 961.41(1m)(cm)1r., 961.48, and 939.62 (2005-06).2

¶ 2 In reversing the circuit court's order and judgment, the court of appeals concluded that the law enforcement officers' warrantless entry into the defendant's home violated the defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution3 applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. We affirm the decision of the court of appeals but on different grounds.

¶ 3 The determinative issue on review is whether the circuit court erred in denying the defendant's motions to suppress the physical evidence that law enforcement officers obtained following a warrantless entry into the defendant's home to make a warrantless arrest and two subsequent warrantless searches of his bedroom.4 This issue turns on the answer to the following question: Are the law enforcement officers' two warrantless searches of the defendant's bedroom justified (respectively) under the "protective sweep" and "search incident to arrest" exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement?

¶ 4 The court concludes that although the first warrantless search of the defendant's bedroom may have been justified under the "protective sweep" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, the second search of the bedroom was not justified under the "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The court further concludes that the search of the canister found in the bedroom and seizure of its contents were not justified under either exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

¶ 5 For the reasons set forth, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order denying the defendant's motion to suppress and reversing the circuit court's judgment of conviction.

I

¶ 6 We briefly summarize the facts relating to the officers' obtaining possession of the evidence that the defendant moved to suppress.

¶ 7 Two City of Racine police officers, Officers Garcia and Anderson, were dispatched to a residence on a complaint of cruelty to animals. As the officers arrived, they heard a dog yelping and proceeded to the yard behind the residence. There, the officers observed four people, one of whom was the defendant, along with three or four dogs. Officer Garcia testified that he did not notice any signs of mistreatment or injury to the dogs.

¶ 8 Officer Anderson advised the defendant of the animal cruelty complaint and made multiple requests for the defendant to identify himself. The defendant responded to each of these requests by saying that he had done nothing wrong. According to Officer Anderson, the defendant objected to the officers' conduct, saying that "this [is] bullshit."

¶ 9 As the officers conversed with the defendant, they observed that the defendant was holding folded-up bills of currency5 as well as a yellow and black canister later revealed to be a beef jerky canister.

¶ 10 Officer Garcia testified that the defendant's residence was not a known drug house, that Officer Garcia had had no prior dealings with the defendant, that Officer Garcia was unaware at the time whether the defendant had a history of drug trafficking, and that Officer Garcia observed neither a controlled substance nor a drug transaction in the defendant's back yard. Officer Garcia also testified that the defendant's residence is located in a known drug trafficking area and that it was "not unusual" for persons to conceal controlled substances in canisters "similar to" the beef jerky canister that the officers observed in the defendant's hand.

¶ 11 Officer Anderson attempted to detain the defendant with handcuffs. At oral argument in this court, the State characterized this attempted detainer not as an attempted arrest upon probable cause but instead as an attempted seizure justified under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The defendant has not challenged the lawfulness of Officer Anderson's attempt to detain the defendant, and the State has not briefed the validity of Officer Anderson's conduct as a Terry stop. For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the attempted detainer was justified under Terry.

¶ 12 When Officer Anderson attempted to detain the defendant, the defendant moved away from the officers and then ran into his home through the rear door. At some point while the defendant was moving toward his home, Officer Anderson ordered the defendant to stop. The defendant did not stop.

¶ 13 The officers pursued the defendant, following him into his home. The defendant ran into a bedroom and shut the door behind him. Officer Garcia and Officer Anderson each testified that the purpose of following the defendant into his home was to take the defendant into custody. Each officer also testified that he did not believe evidence of any crime would be discovered inside the defendant's home.

¶ 14 After approximately one minute or less, the defendant voluntarily exited the bedroom. Officer Garcia testified that he then ordered the defendant to the ground and that the defendant did not obey this order. Chemical spray was applied to the defendant.6 The defendant fell to the ground and was handcuffed.7

¶ 15 Officer Garcia testified that after the defendant was handcuffed, Officer Garcia performed a brief "protective sweep" of the bedroom in which the defendant had just been hiding. The defendant was escorted out of the home after Officer Garcia performed this brief search of the bedroom. Officer Garcia then performed a second search of the bedroom.

¶ 16 Officer Garcia testified that while performing this second search, he discovered underneath the defendant's bed the canister that the officers earlier had observed in the defendant's hand. Officer Garcia opened the canister. The canister contained a substance that Officer Garcia identified as cocaine.

¶ 17 Officer Garcia testified that his purpose in performing the second search of the defendant's bedroom was "to search[] for the canister." When asked why he did not obtain a warrant before performing this second search of the defendant's bedroom, Officer Garcia testified that he "didn't think of it."

¶ 18 Officer Anderson's testimony regarding Officer Garcia's searches of the bedroom was inconsistent with Officer Garcia's testimony on one point. Officer Anderson testified that Officer Garcia discovered the canister during his initial search of the defendant's bedroom, not during the second search. Officer Anderson offered no testimony regarding the nature or timing of either the first or second searches of the bedroom.

¶ 19 The circuit court did not make a factual finding regarding whether Officer Garcia discovered the canister and contraband during his first or second search of the defendant's bedroom. In his brief, the defendant states that the canister and contraband were discovered during the second search of the defendant's bedroom.8 The State asserts in its reply brief that it is unclear whether the canister was found during the first or second search of the defendant's bedroom.9

¶ 20 Subsequent to his arrest, the defendant was transported to the Racine County Jail. The defendant allegedly made inculpatory statements to police while at the jail.

¶ 21 The State charged the defendant with one count of obstructing an officer and one count of second offense possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The defendant was charged as a habitual offender under each count.

¶ 22 The defendant moved to suppress as evidence the contraband that Officer Garcia discovered while searching the defendant's bedroom, as well as the statements that the defendant allegedly made at the Racine County Jail. The circuit court denied the defendant's suppression motion.

¶ 23 The defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to deliver as a second offense and as a habitual offender. The defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied.

¶ 24 The court of appeals reversed the order of the circuit court, holding that the officers' warrantless entry into the defendant's residence was unlawful. The court of appeals did not address the question whether the searches of the defendant's bedroom were lawful.

II

¶ 25 Assuming without deciding that the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was justified under the Fourth Amendment, we consider whether the warrantless search of the defendant's bedroom and the warrantless search of the canister and seizure of the contents thereof are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The question whether a search is constitutional is a question of constitutional fact.10 This court upholds the circuit court's findings of evidentiary or historical facts unless those findings are clearly erroneous. This court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • State v. Ndina
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 26, 2009
    ... ... 18. Vanness, 304 Wis.2d 692, ¶ 6, 738 N.W.2d 154 ("The only issue raised on appeal is whether ... [the circuit court] violated Vanness's constitutional right to a public trial. This case requires us to apply the constitution to undisputed facts.") ... 19. State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, ¶ 25, 311 Wis.2d 257, 752 N.W.2d 713 ... 20. Vanness, 304 Wis.2d 692, ¶ 6, 738 N.W.2d 154 ("The application of constitutional principles to historical facts is a question of law reviewed without deference to the trial court.") ...         Although "it is within the ... ...
  • State v. Subdiaz-Osorio
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 24, 2014
    ...a Provider of Elec. Commc'n Serv. To Disclose Records to Gov't, 620 F.3d 304, 317 (3d Cir.2010)); Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 70 A.3d at 632. 16.State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, ¶ 27, 311 Wis.2d 257, 752 N.W.2d 713; State v. Payano–Roman, 2006 WI 47, ¶ 30, 290 Wis.2d 380, 714 N.W.2d 548. 17. I refer ......
  • State v. Delap
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2018
  • State v. Carroll
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 3, 2010
    ...those evidentiary facts independently of the circuit court and the court of appeals, but we benefit from those courts' analyses. State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, ¶ 25, 311 Wis.2d 257, 752 N.W.2d III. DISCUSSION A. Constitutional Permissibility of the Warrantless Searches ¶ 18 We begin by brief......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT