State v. Parisi
857 N.W.2d 472
Wis. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parisi appeals after conviction following denial of suppression of evidence found in her apartment during warrantless entry by Oshkosh police.
- Complaint about drugs at 1319 Clayton Court, Apartment 108; odors of burning marijuana reported for months.
- Officers knocked and announced; one officer smelled marijuana; a drug-detecting dog alerted to Apartment 108.
- Patio door slightly ajar; officers entered without a warrant to secure the scene.
- Inside, officers observed plain-view marijuana and later obtained a search warrant; Parisi was charged with possession with intent to deliver.
- Court held exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry | Parisi argues no exigency. | State contends odor of burning marijuana and risk of evidence destruction created exigency. | Exigency existed; entry lawful. |
| Whether knock-and-announce created the exigency | Parisi asserts knock-alone cannot establish exigency. | Knock-and-announce is lawful and does not create exigency by itself. | Knock and announce did not create exigency; but exigency existed independently. |
| Independent source doctrine applicability | If exigent circumstances do not apply, independent source may preclude suppression. | Independent source not reached since exigency exists. | Not reached; dispositive issue is exigency. |
| Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of poisonous tree if tree poisonous. | Exigent circumstances render the tree non-poisonous. | Not suppressed; tree not poisonous given exigent circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302 (2010 WI 80) (exigent circumstances burden on State; warrantless entry allowed under risk to destroy evidence)
- State v. Hughes, 607 N.W.2d 621 (2000 WI 24) (odor of drugs creates reasonable belief of destruction risk; objective test for exigency)
- State v. Kiekhefer, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997) (distinguishable; odor alone insufficient without other exigent facts)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (police knock-and-announce consistent with Fourth Amendment; pre-seizure steps lawful)
- United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766 (2d Cir. 1990) (officers' lawful conduct does not impermissibly create exigent circumstances)