Opinion ID: 2066525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 12. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution establish the right of persons to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. [5] This court traditionally interprets the two constitutional provisions in concert. As a result, the development of search and seizure law in Wisconsin parallels the development of search and seizure law by the United States Supreme Court. State v. Andrews, 201 Wis. 2d 383, 389, 549 N.W.2d 210 (1996). Under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, probable cause must exist to justify an arrest. [2, 3] ¶ 13. It may be helpful at the beginning of our analysis to note the distinction between probable cause to search and probable cause to arrest. [6] Generally, the same quantum of evidence is required whether one is concerned with probable cause to search or probable cause to arrest. State v. Kiper, 193 Wis. 2d 69, 82, 532 N.W.2d 698 (1995) (citing 1 LAFAVE, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 3.1(b), at 544 (2d ed. 1987)). However, while the two determinations are measured by similar objective standards, the two determinations require different inquiries. Under an analysis of probable cause to search, the relevant inquiry is whether evidence of a crime will be found. See 2 LAFAVE, Search and Seizure, § 3.1(b), at 7-8 (3rd ed. 1996). Under an analysis of probable cause to arrest, the inquiry is whether the person to be arrested has committed a crime. See id. ¶ 14. This case involves both an arrest and a search incident to that arrest. The primary focus must be on the lawfulness of the arrest.