State v. St. Martin
334 Wis. 2d 290
Wis.2011Background
- St. Martin's girlfriend Latoya consented to attic search; St. Martin, detained in police vehicle, expressly refused.
- Police conducted warrantless attic search, found cocaine and cash; later obtained a warrant and conducted a second search.
- Second search yielded cash, a scale, cell phones, and documents; St. Martin was charged and pled guilty after suppression motion.
- Circuit court denied suppression, ruled initial search could be valid under Matlock; the State argued independent source for warrant.
- Court of Appeals certified whether Randolph applies where a physically present co-tenant objects but is removed from scene; Matlock- Randolph framework discussed.
- Wisconsin Supreme Court held Randolph does not apply; allowed Matlock rule; affirmed circuit court’s suppression denial and admissibility of second-search evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Randolph apply when objecting co-tenant is not at the threshold? | St. Martin; Latoya's consent valid; Randolph not controlling because objector not at door. | State; Randolph should apply; objecting co-tenant at threshold blocks consent. | Randolph not controlling; Matlock governs. |
| Is the initial warrantless attic search valid given Latoya's consent and St. Martin's objection? | Latoya had authority; consent valid against absent co-tenant; no pretext shown. | St. Martin's explicit refusal vitiates the search; needs suppression. | Initial search valid; evidence admissible. |
| Does the admissibility of the second, warrant-based search depend on the tainted-tainted evidence in the warrant affidavit? | Unaffirmed tainted info does not bar probable cause if untainted evidence suffices. | Redacted taint should undermine probable cause for the warrant. | Warrant valid based on untainted evidence; taint does not render second search invalid. |
| Does the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrine apply to exclude tainted fruits? | Not necessary; initial search lawful; waiver of taint by independent source. | Consider if taint affects second search’s admissibility. | doctrines not required to apply; analysis ends with valid initial consent and valid warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (consent of one with common authority valid against absent co-tenant)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (physically present co-tenant's express refusal dispositive as to him)
- United States v. Hudspeth, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2007) (Randolph narrow; presence of objecting tenant matters)
- United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2008) (contemporaneous presence indispensible to Randolph)
- State v. O'Brien, 70 Wis.2d 414 (1975) (untainted evidence can sustain probable cause for warrant)
- State v. Lange, 158 Wis.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1990) (independent source/taint considerations for warrants)