Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Wheeler

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin

Decided March 19, 2013No. 2012AP1291-CRPublished

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

  1. Arizona v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Hutto v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. State v. KelleyCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2005
  4. State v. SuttonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API