WI: Seizure at door on RS violates 4A

Seizure at the threshold of a home on reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment which requires probable cause. State v. Cundy, 2023 Wisc. App. LEXIS 761 (July 13, 2023):

¶33 We are persuaded by the discussion in a non-precedential opinion of this court that explicitly rejects the State’s reasonable suspicion argument in the context of a warrantless seizure of a person in the person’s home or curtilage. In State v. Bertrand, No. 2019AP1240-CR, unpublished slip op. ¶¶12-13 (WI App Feb. 26, 2020) (footnote omitted), we stated:

For the sake of our analysis, we will accept that the officer had reasonable suspicion [of operating while intoxicated because] it clarifies the point we wish to make, which is that reasonable suspicion does not create an exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment for an in-home search or seizure under these circumstances. The State cites to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968) for the proposition that officers are allowed “to perform brief investigations with less than probable [cause] to determine if a person has committed a crime.” Terry does not authorize an officer to enter a private home. See, e.g., Moore v. Pederson, 806 F.3d 1036, 1054 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Home may be where the heart is, but it cannot be where the government is-at least for purposes of conducting a Terry-like stop […]” (footnote omitted)); United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Terry exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to in-home searches and seizures.” (citation omitted)).

. . .

¶40 For the reasons stated, we conclude that Cundy was seized when the officer denied his request to terminate his encounter with the officer at the doorway of his home and that he is entitled to suppression of all evidence derived from that seizure because: (1) the warrantless seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights; and (2) the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for a crime. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.