Opinion ID: 1836341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lawful Authority

Text: ¶ 14 A central question before us is whether the jury instruction given accurately conveyed the meaning of lawful authority under Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1) as applied to the facts of this case. Lawful authority describes whether the officer's actions are conducted in accordance with the law. State v. Young, 2006 WI 98, ¶ 76, 294 Wis.2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 729; State v. Annina, 2006 WI App 202, ¶ 17, 296 Wis.2d 599, 723 N.W.2d 708. ¶ 15 It is black letter law that a constitutional violation is an unlawful act. See, e.g., Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 829, 104 S.Ct. 3380, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984) (referring to Fourth Amendment violations as illegal conduct); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 146, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (concluding that acts that violate the Constitution are illegal); City of Milwaukee v. Kilgore, 193 Wis.2d 168, 189, 532 N.W.2d 690 (1995) (noting that a use of police power in violation of constitutional due process is unlawful); State v. Smith, 131 Wis.2d 220, 235, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986) (stating that an arrest in violation of the state or federal Constitutions is unlawful). ¶ 16 Accordingly, we reject the State's broad interpretation of lawful authority because lawful authority, as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1), requires that police conduct be in compliance with both the federal and state Constitutions, in addition to any applicable statutes. Smith, 131 Wis.2d at 235, 388 N.W.2d 601. Therefore, we determine whether principles of constitutional law relating to the officers' interactions with Ferguson required the circuit court to instruct the jury differently. ¶ 17 An arrest is a seizure invoking protections afforded under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. [6] Generally, if the police have probable cause to make an arrest, they do not need a warrant. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 417-23, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); West v. State, 74 Wis.2d 390, 398, 246 N.W.2d 675 (1976). However, when the police must enter a home to arrest, if they have not obtained a warrant in advance, the entry and arrest are presumptively unlawful. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); State v. Roberson, 2006 WI 80, ¶ 31 n. 12, 292 Wis.2d 280, 717 N.W.2d 111; State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶ 17, 233 Wis.2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621. This presumption is based on the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic. Payton, 445 U.S. at 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371. Indeed, `[i]t is axiomatic that the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.' State v. Richter, 2000 WI 58, ¶ 28, 235 Wis.2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29 (quoting Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 748, 104 S.Ct. 2091, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 (1984)). ¶ 18 A warrantless arrest executed inside of a home may be presumptively unlawful because the home entry itself is presumptively unlawful. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) (concluding that based on the facts of that case, the arrest that followed an unlawful entry was unlawful). Acts subsequent to an unlawful entry, but while the police are inside of the home, also are presumptively unlawful because of the warrantless entry itself. New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 20, 110 S.Ct. 1640, 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990) (reasoning that because police conduct subsequent to an unlawful entry and prior to exit of the home was unlawful, a warrantless entry will lead to the suppression of any evidence found, or statements taken, inside the home). ¶ 19 However, not all warrantless home entries are unlawful. Payton merely states a presumption to which there are exceptions. For example, a home entry, though unaccompanied by a warrant, is lawful if exigent circumstances are present. Payton, 445 U.S. at 586-89, 100 S.Ct. 1371; Richter, 235 Wis.2d 524, ¶ 28, 612 N.W.2d 29 (concluding that the Fourth Amendment is not an absolute prohibition to a warrantless home entry); Smith, 131 Wis.2d at 228, 388 N.W.2d 601 (concluding that exigent circumstances coupled with probable cause to arrest are sufficient to justify a home-based arrest conducted without a warrant). Exigent circumstances exist when it would be unreasonable and contrary to public policy to bar law enforcement officers at the door. Richter, 235 Wis.2d 524, ¶ 28, 612 N.W.2d 29; see also Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298-300, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). ¶ 20 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that exigent circumstances may be present in a number of different situations. See, e.g., Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978) (concluding that an ongoing fire was an exigent circumstance); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976) (holding that police in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon was an exigent circumstance); Hayden, 387 U.S. at 298-99, 87 S.Ct. 1642 (same); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (concluding that imminent destruction of evidence was an exigent circumstance). As we have explained: [t]here are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer's warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect, 2) a threat to the safety of a suspect or others, 3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and 4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee. Richter, 235 Wis.2d 524, ¶ 29, 612 N.W.2d 29 (citing Smith, 131 Wis.2d at 229, 388 N.W.2d 601). The State bears the burden of proving that a warrantless home entry is justified by exigent circumstances. Id. ¶ 21 The exclusionary rule, which, if applied to unlawful police conduct, results in suppression of evidence obtained as a result of a constitutional violation, was developed in part to foster compliance with the Fourth Amendment's concern for the sanctity of the home. United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980). Suppression is the usual remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation. Id. ¶ 22 The arrest and subsequent prosecution are not themselves invalidated, even though the initial entry may have been unlawful, so long as there was probable cause for the arrest. Id. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Crews: [A defendant] cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because his appearance in court was precipitated by an unlawful arrest. An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction. Id. (further citations omitted). ¶ 23 However, Ferguson is not moving for suppression of any evidence, nor does she challenge her conviction for disorderly conduct. She challenges her conviction for obstruction because a substantive element of obstruction is whether the police were acting pursuant to their lawful authority, as Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1) requires. Ferguson focuses her attention solely on police conduct within her home, which she asserts was unlawful because the police entered without a warrant. The State counters that the police were lawfully within her home because they entered due to the exigent circumstance of a threat to the safety of her nephew. ¶ 24 One of the officers testified as follows regarding the situation observed just outside Ferguson's door immediately prior to their warrantless home entry to arrest her: When I was up at the door, next to [Ferguson], she was just waving her hands, pointing at me. I smelled an odor of intoxicants from  what I believe were intoxicants, based on my experience. Again, because she didn't seem to respond to my request to calm down, within or after the first couple minutes or a minute or so [the other officer] stepped up to see if he could calm her down. The other officer testified that immediately prior to entry: I don't recall if she picked up a phone book or a telephone or something. But then the young gentleman we identified as her nephew ... was coming behind her. He was saying Auntie, Auntie, and he went to grab her and bring her back a little bit, to compose her, I believe, and that's when she pushed him out of the way and started swearing and yelling at him, telling him to pack his F'ing stuff and he can move out, too. .... [B]ased on our encounter with her and her conduct and how she treated [her nephew] and pushed him, even in our presence, I determined it wouldn't be a good idea to just leave the situation and go back to the [police department]. I determined I was going to arrest her for disorderly conduct, at least so she can sober up for the night in the jail and not cause [her nephew] any harm after we leave. ¶ 25 The State argues that clearly exigent circumstances were present that justified their warrantless entry. However, the extent to which law enforcement is permitted to rely on exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry of a home has a relationship to the seriousness of the offense. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Welsh, where the underlying offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is relatively minor, courts should be very hesitant to find exigent circumstances. Welsh, 466 U.S. at 750, 104 S.Ct. 2091. That is, [w]hen the government's interest is only to arrest for a minor offense, ... the government usually should be allowed to make such arrest[ ] only with a warrant issued upon probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate. Id. The rationale for this holding is that the general presumption that police conduct accompanied by probable cause is reasonable is lessened when the underlying offense is minor. [7] Id. at 750, 104 S.Ct. 2091. ¶ 26 We acknowledge the distinction recognized in Welsh, and note that this distinction causes us to address State v. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152, 256 Wis.2d 132, 647 N.W.2d 421. In Mikkelson, the court of appeals interpreted Welsh and Santana to impose a bright-line rule that police are justified in making a warrantless entry into a home only where the legislature had labeled the underlying offense as a felony. Mikkelson, 256 Wis.2d 132, ¶ 17, 647 N.W.2d 421. Because the underlying offense in Mikkelson was a misdemeanor, the court of appeals held that any exigent circumstances present were insufficient to justify the police's warrantless entry into Mikkelson's home. Id. ¶ 27 Our review of the reasoning of Mikkelson, as compared with that of Welsh and Santana, causes us to overrule Mikkelson and to adopt Justice Prosser's concurrence in State v. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, 311 Wis.2d 257, 752 N.W.2d 713. As Justice Prosser noted, Welsh and Santana did not create a bright-line rule requiring the underlying offense to be labeled a felony in order for exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless home entry. [8] Id., ¶ 71 (Prosser, J., concurring). Instead, Welsh held that the gravity of the underlying offense is an important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists, Welsh, 466 U.S. at 753, 104 S.Ct. 2091, and that where the underlying offense is a noncriminal, civil forfeiture offense for which no imprisonment is possible, exigent circumstances will rarely, if ever, be present, id. at 754, 104 S.Ct. 2091. ¶ 28 Welsh does not create a felony/misdemeanor distinction for finding exigent circumstances, contrary to the holding in Mikkelson. Instead, in determining the extent to which the underlying offense may support a finding of exigency, the critical factor ... is ... `the penalty that may attach.' Sanders, 311 Wis.2d 257, ¶ 81, 752 N.W.2d 713 (Prosser, J., concurring) (quoting Welsh, 466 U.S. at 754 n. 14, 104 S.Ct. 2091). We reach this conclusion since the penalty imposed for an offense `provide[s] the clearest and most consistent indication of the State's interest in arresting individuals suspected of committing that offense.' Id. (quoting Welsh, 466 U.S. at 754 n. 14, 104 S.Ct. 2091). ¶ 29 Accordingly, courts, in evaluating whether a warrantless entry is justified by exigent circumstances, should consider whether the underlying offense is a jailable or nonjailable offense, rather than whether the legislature has labeled that offense a felony or a misdemeanor. To hold otherwise would allow the perpetrator of a serious misdemeanor offense, for which jail time is a penalty, to avoid immediate arrest merely because of the label (`felony' or `misdemeanor') chosen by the legislature. Id., ¶ 93 (citation omitted). Such a result is not mandated by Welsh. ¶ 30 Our interpretation of Welsh is supported by the United States Supreme Court's explanation of Welsh in Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 335-36, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001), where it explained that  Welsh drew a distinction between jailable and nonjailable offenses, not between felony and misdemeanor offenses. [9] Sanders, 311 Wis.2d 257, ¶ 83, 752 N.W.2d 713 (Prosser, J., concurring) (citing McArthur, 531 U.S. at 335-36, 121 S.Ct. 946). Furthermore, many other jurisdictions have interpreted Welsh consistent with our interpretation here. See, e.g., People v. Lavoyne M., 221 Cal.App.3d 154, 270 Cal.Rptr. 394, 395-96 (Cal.Ct.App. 1990) (rejecting a proposed distinction between misdemeanors and felonies); Mendez v. People, 986 P.2d 275, 283 (Colo.1999) (holding that exigent circumstances can justify a warrantless entry even though the underlying offense is a misdemeanor); Dyer v. State, 680 So.2d 612, 613 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1996) (holding that misdemeanor possession of marijuana was a much more serious offense than the civil forfeiture offense in Welsh, and weighed in favor of exigency); Threatt v. State, 240 Ga.App. 592, 524 S.E.2d 276, 280 (1999) (noting that the gravity of the underlying offense, not the label the legislature has given it, is the appropriate focus of inquiry); State v. Legg, 633 N.W.2d 763, 769-70, 773 (Iowa 2001) (noting that the distinction in Welsh is based on the penalty that attaches to the offense); State v. Paul, 548 N.W.2d 260, 267-68 (Minn.1996) (noting that the distinction in Welsh is based not on the offense's label, but on whether the offense is classified as a criminal offense for which imprisonment is possible) (emphasis in original); City of Kirksville v. Guffey, 740 S.W.2d 227, 228-29 (Mo.Ct.App. 1987) (holding that misdemeanor drunk driving justified a finding of exigency); State v. Nikola, 359 N.J.Super. 573, 821 A.2d 110, 117-18 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2003) (noting that Welsh distinguished between jailable and nonjailable offenses, not misdemeanors and felonies); People v. Odenweller, 137 A.D.2d 15, 527 N.Y.S.2d 127, 129-30 (N.Y.App.Div. 1988) (holding that misdemeanor drunk driving justified a finding of exigency); Beaver v. State, 106 S.W.3d 243, 248-49 (Tex.App.2003) (noting that Welsh distinguished between jailable and nonjailable offenses, not misdemeanors and felonies); Cherry v. Commonwealth, 44 Va.App. 347, 605 S.E.2d 297, 306-07 (Va.Ct.App.2004) (same); Rideout v. State, 122 P.3d 201, 210 (Wyo.2005) ([T]he distinction drawn by the Court in Welsh between minor offenses that do not justify a warrantless entry into a residence and those offenses that do is predicated upon whether the subject offense carries a potential jail term.). Accordingly, because the disorderly conduct with which Ferguson was charged was a jailable offense, the jury could have been permitted to decide whether exigent circumstances justified the police's warrantless entry into her home. [10]