State v. Blanco
2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis. 2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrest warrant authorizes police to enter a third party's residence if they have a reasonable belief that the suspect both resides at the location and is present at the time of entry. A subsequent protective sweep may extend to a secured area, like a crawl space fastened with screws, if officers have a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area harbors an individual posing a danger.
Facts:
- Police possessed an arrest warrant for Antonio V. Blanco for attempted first-degree homicide, while armed.
- Informants and the apartment manager told police that Blanco was 'staying' in Nora M. Al-Shammari's apartment.
- An occupant of the building told police they had seen Blanco enter Al-Shammari's apartment just before police arrived.
- When police knocked and announced their presence, Al-Shammari refused them entry.
- During the standoff, an officer observed Blanco attempt to escape through a window of the apartment.
- For over three hours, officers heard significant activity from the bathroom, including excessive toilet flushing and noises near a crawl space above the bathtub.
- After securing a key, a Tactical Enforcement Unit entered the apartment and arrested Blanco, Al-Shammari, and a third individual, Rogelio Fuentez.
- An officer proceeded to the bathroom, where he used a screwdriver to remove a four-screw panel covering a crawl space in the ceiling.
Procedural Posture:
- Antonio V. Blanco and Nora M. Al-Shammari were charged with drug offenses in a Wisconsin trial court.
- Both defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence discovered in Al-Shammari's apartment.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied the defendants' suppression motions.
- Following the denial of their motions, both Blanco and Al-Shammari pled guilty.
- The trial court entered judgments of conviction against both defendants.
- Blanco and Al-Shammari, as appellants, appealed the trial court's denial of their suppression motions to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, an intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit police, armed only with an arrest warrant for a suspect, to enter a third party's apartment and subsequently conduct a protective sweep of a crawl space secured by screws?
Opinions:
Majority - Wedemeyer, P.J.
Yes. The Fourth Amendment permits the entry and subsequent protective sweep under these circumstances. An arrest warrant allows police to enter a home if they have a reasonable belief the suspect resides there and is present. Based on information that Blanco was 'staying' at the apartment and eyewitness confirmations of his presence, the police reasonably believed it was his residence, satisfying the standard from Payton v. New York. The subsequent search of the screwed-shut crawl space was a valid protective sweep under Maryland v. Buie. The officers had specific, articulable facts justifying the search: the serious nature of the warrant (armed attempted homicide), the significant noise from the bathroom near the crawl space, knowledge that the space was large enough to hide a person, and observations that the panel had been recently disturbed. These facts created a reasonable suspicion that the area harbored a dangerous individual.
Dissenting - Curley, J.
No. While the initial entry was lawful, the subsequent search of the crawl space was not a valid protective sweep under the Fourth Amendment. The officer's actions suggest the sweep was a pretext to search for drugs, not a search for a dangerous person, as all known suspects were already in custody. Furthermore, the search exceeded the scope of a protective sweep defined in Maryland v. Buie. The bathroom did not immediately adjoin the place of arrest, and a person hidden behind a panel secured with four screws could not launch an 'immediate' attack, which is the threat a protective sweep is meant to counter. This search improperly expands the protective sweep exception and undermines Fourth Amendment protections.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and potentially expands two key Fourth Amendment doctrines. First, it affirms that the term 'staying at' can be sufficient to establish a reasonable belief of residency for purposes of executing an arrest warrant under Payton v. New York. Second, it broadens the permissible scope of a Maryland v. Buie protective sweep, allowing for a more intrusive search of a secured area if officers can articulate specific facts pointing to a potential danger. The ruling gives significant deference to officers' on-the-scene judgments in dangerous situations, potentially lowering the bar for what constitutes a 'cursory visual inspection' in future cases.
