Court Opinion

ID: 9663318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:35:09.991639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:47.837647
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). Police safety is of paramount importance in fourth amendment jurisprudence. Law enforcement *238officers cannot reliably predict the danger that may exist when they execute a warrant. We need clear, straightforward rules that accommodate the safety needs of the police and at the same time honor the constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches dictated by the fourth amendment.
The court of appeals sought to create a clear rule and to uphold the fourth amendment's requirement of reasonableness by requiring that "the arresting officers have reasonable grounds to conclude that weapons or destructible evidence might be present in that room." State v. Murdock, 151 Wis. 2d 198, 207, 445 N.W.2d 319 (Ct. App. 1989). The majority opinion abandons the reasonable grounds requirement and the room limitation set forth by the court of appeals.
The majority opinion holds that law enforcement officers need not have reasonable suspicion before conducting the search in a home incident to an arrest. Majority op. at 237. The majority opinion concludes that a search in a home incident to an arrest is reasonable per se if the search is confined to the "immediate area" surrounding the arrestee at the time of his arrest without having to consider the arrestee's "actual accessibility to the area searched." Majority op. p. 236. Without a reasonableness standard or an "actual access" standard the boundaries of the "immediate area" and therefore the boundaries of a constitutional search are not clear.
The majority opinion's decision apparently applies New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), a case involving search of a car incident to an arrest, to this case involving a search of a home incident to an arrest. I do not believe a car and a home can be equated in search and seizure law.
I believe that the majority opinion contravenes the standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court *239in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), and Maryland v. Buie, — U.S. —, 58 U.S.L.W. 4281 (1990).