Case Title: State v. Michael A. Littlejohn

Citation: 2010 WI 85

Docket Number: 2007AP000900-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2010-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
2010 WI 85 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2007AP900-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
     v. 
Michael A. Littlejohn, 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION 
2008 WI App 45 
Reported at: 307 Wis. 2d 477, 747 N.W.2d 712 
(Ct. App. 2008-Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
July 15, 2010   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
April 13, 2010   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Monroe   
 
JUDGE: 
Steven L. Abbott   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., dissents (opinion filed). 
BRADLEY, J., joins dissent.  
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For the defendant-respondent-petitioner there were briefs 
and oral argument by William E. Schmaal, assistant state public 
defender. 
 
For the plaintiff-appellant the cause was argued by Michael 
J. Losse, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was 
J.B. Van Hollen, attorney general. 
 
 
 
 
2010 WI 85
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  2007AP900-CR  
(L.C. No. 
2006CF168) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
          Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
     v. 
 
Michael A. Littlejohn, 
 
          Defendant-Respondent-Petitioner. 
 
 
 
FILED 
 
JUL 15, 2010 
 
A. John Voelker 
Acting Clerk of 
Supreme Court  
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed and 
cause remanded.   
 
¶1 
MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.   This is a review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit 
court's grant of a motion to suppress evidence seized from a 
locked automobile.  The issue in this case is identical to the 
issue in State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ 
N.W.2d ____, which we also decide today.  The question presented 
is, when a search incident to arrest is conducted by law 
enforcement officers who act in objectively reasonable reliance 
on clear and settled precedent authorizing that search, but the 
No. 
2007AP900-CR   
 
2 
 
search is later declared unconstitutional, should the remedy of 
exclusion apply to bar admission of the illegally obtained 
evidence? 
¶2 
The facts in this case are similar but unrelated to 
the events in Dearborn.  More details can be found in the court 
of appeals opinion, State v. Littlejohn, 2008 WI App 45, 307 
Wis. 2d 477, 747 N.W.2d 712, but the relevant facts are as 
follows. 
¶3 
Littlejohn was arrested for driving with a revoked 
license.  After officers placed him under arrest, handcuffed 
him, and placed him in a squad car, they searched Littlejohn's 
locked automobile.  In the passenger compartment, officers found 
what appeared to be marijuana and cocaine.  A search of the 
locked 
trunk 
revealed 
more 
marijuana, 
cocaine, 
and 
drug 
paraphernalia.  Based on this evidence, the police obtained a 
warrant to search Littlejohn's residence, where they found 
additional incriminating evidence. 
¶4 
Littlejohn moved to suppress the evidence seized from 
his car and residence.  The circuit court granted the motion 
because there were not "sufficient facts to raise an honest 
belief in a reasonable mind that any objects sought [we]re 
linked to the commission of a crime, and that they [would] be 
found in the [automobile]."  The court of appeals reversed, 
holding that the search was valid, incident to Littlejohn's 
lawful arrest.  307 Wis. 2d 477, ¶1. 
¶5 
For 
the 
reasons 
set 
forth 
in 
Dearborn, 
___ 
Wis. 2d ___, ¶¶14-49, we affirm the court of appeals.  We hold 
No. 
2007AP900-CR   
 
3 
 
that the good faith exception precludes application of the 
exclusionary rule where officers conduct a search in objectively 
reasonable reliance upon clear and settled Wisconsin precedent 
that is later deemed unconstitutional by the United States 
Supreme Court.  Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals and 
remand the cause for further proceedings. 
By the Court.—The opinion of the court of appeals is 
affirmed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. 
 
 
 
No.  2007AP900-CR.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶6 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.   (dissenting).  I dissent 
for the reasons set forth in my dissent in State v. Dearborn, 
2010 WI 84, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, decided today. 
¶7 
I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH 
BRADLEY joins this opinion.   
 
 
No.  2007AP900-CR.ssa 
 
 
 
1