State v. Wheeler
Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFine, J.
¶ 31. {concurring!dissenting). I join in all of the Majority's opinion except its conclusion that Officer Rufaro Davis's search of the potato-chip bag did not exceed the scope of the consensual search.
*443¶ 32. As the Majority tells us, the officers got consent to search for a person — either a victim or a perpetrator of domestic abuse. Thus, as the Majority also tells us, the officers properly searched places where a person could he either secreted or hiding, and I agree with the Majority that this included the attic. The Majority errs in my view when it holds that the officer could look inside…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Arizona v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hutto v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- State v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
- State v. SuttonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2011