State v. Christopher D. Wilson
982 N.W.2d 67
Wis.2022Background
- Police received a 911 tip describing a gray/silver BMW driving erratically, stopping at a given address, and a white male in a black cap and bright orange shoes climbing a fence and entering the yard.
- Officers found the running BMW on a back parking slab behind a tall, solid wooden fence; the gate was ajar but the opening was blocked by a large garbage can.
- Without a warrant, officers removed the garbage can, entered the fenced backyard from the alley, knocked on the side door of an unattached garage, and encountered Christopher Wilson, who matched the caller's description.
- Officers observed signs of intoxication, escorted Wilson to the vehicle, saw a handgun in plain view, arrested him, and discovered other incriminating items; Wilson was charged and later pleaded guilty to some counts.
- Wilson moved to suppress evidence gathered after the warrantless backyard entry; the circuit court denied suppression (relying on hot pursuit), the court of appeals affirmed (finding a permissible knock-and-talk), and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wilson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had an implicit license to enter fenced backyard to conduct a knock-and-talk | Implicit license extended because gate was ajar and officers reasonably believed someone was in the yard | No implicit license: tall, solid fence and garbage can blocking the opening showed intent to exclude visitors; backyard not a public or main entrance | No implicit license; knock-and-talk did not justify the warrantless entry |
| Whether hot pursuit exigency justified warrantless entry into the backyard | Entry was justified by hot pursuit of a suspect who had committed jailable offenses | No hot pursuit: there was no immediate or continuous chase from the scene; officers checked registration and contacted the caller before entry | Hot pursuit did not apply; officers did not immediately or continuously pursue Wilson |
| Remedy: whether evidence and conviction must be vacated and suppression granted | Evidence admissible if exigency/knock-and-talk valid; conviction should stand | Evidence must be suppressed as fruit of unconstitutional entry; conviction should be vacated | Evidence must be suppressed; conviction vacated and case remanded to grant suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (describes the limited implicit license for visitors and application to knock-and-talk)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (articulates four-factor test for curtilage)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage is protected area surrounding the home)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entry presumptively unreasonable)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (hot pursuit requires immediate, continuous pursuit)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (hot pursuit may include prompt entry after a chase)
- United States v. Garcia, 997 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1993) (back entrance treated as public/main entrance when reasonably so believed)
- Alvarez v. Montgomery County, 147 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1998) (permitted backyard approach where facts indicated visitors should go to the back)
- State v. Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524 (Wis. 2000) (hot pursuit upheld where officers immediately and continuously pursued a suspect)