State v. Davis
798 N.W.2d 902
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Davis was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon; the warrant relied on a warrantless entry into the attached garage.
- Deputies visited Davis's home in July 2008 to collect a statement form and again the next day to retrieve it.
- Davis's residence includes a trailer, an attached foyer, and a two-car garage, viewed as a single curtilage structure.
- Deputies entered the open garage, moved to a back door, entered the foyer, and observed a rifle in the foyer from the foyer/trailer area.
- Zahn later learned of a felony conviction; a search warrant was obtained 49 days later leading to a home search and firearm seizures.
- Davis moved to suppress the evidence; the circuit court initially suppressed the entry but later allowed it under a good-faith rationale the State abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the attached garage is curtilage and entry violated the Fourth Amendment | Davis argues entry into the garage violated curtilage protections | State contends Edgeberg allows implied permission due to public access | Zahn's entry into the garage violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the foyer/door identity affects the Fourth Amendment analysis | If the foyer is part of the residence, entry was unlawful | Foyer seen as enclosed but not a public entry; analysis under Edgeberg/Leutenegger | Entry into the foyer was unlawful as extension of curtilage |
| Whether suppression is required as fruit of the poisonous tree | Observation led to warrant; evidence should be suppressed | Good faith or mitigated intrusion could justify later warrant | All evidence from initial entry and subsequent search must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edgeberg, 188 Wis. 2d 339 (Ct. App. 1994) (curtilage area accessibility and implied entry concepts)
- State v. Leutenegger, 275 Wis. 2d 512 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004) (garage-entry exception to general curtilage rule; limited permissible entry)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (curtilage factors for determining privacy expectations)