WI: “the end of a romantic relationship does not automatically terminate shared authority when the partner continues to access or use the property”

“The fact that Klein expressed anger toward A.V. and moved some of her belongings outside does not establish that her residential status had ended. He did not finish removing her possessions, he permitted her inside, and her household items remained throughout the home. As noted in United States v. Wright, 838 F.3d 880, 886 (7th Cir. 2016), the end of a romantic relationship does not automatically terminate shared authority when the partner continues to access or use the property. That principle applies here.” State v. Klein, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1141 (Dec. 17, 2025) (unpublished).*

Even removing the Franks challenged material from the affidavit, without getting to the merits of the lack of probable cause, there still was probable cause. United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261674 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2025).*

“The Defendant fails to satisfy the high burden necessary for a Franks hearing. I need not determine whether the challenged statements were made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, because Dozier has failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that these statements are material to a determination of probable cause.” United States v. Dozier, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261587 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.