Court Opinion

ID: 9659346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:41:32.81831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:06.731034
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶1. The question presented in these consolidated cases is whether evidence that is seized pursuant to a rule expounded by *784this court must be suppressed when that rule is subsequently determined by the United States Supreme Court to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
¶ 2. We considered this identical issue in a separate case decided today, State v. Ward, 2000 WI 3, 231 Wis. 2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517. For the reasons set forth in Ward, we conclude that the evidence seized at the home of Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz is admissible evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
¶ 3. The undisputed facts in this case are as follows. In February 1997 City of Racine police executed a no-knock search warrant at a home occupied by Lisa Orta. Orta and Ricardo Ruiz were present at the residence at the time the search warrant was executed. The officers seized 6.7 grams of marijuana, 3.7 grams of cocaine in one location and .2 grams of cocaine in another, two guns, a digital scale and other items. The defendants were each charged with violating various provisions of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.1
¶ 4. Subsequent to the search and while the defendants' case was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). In Richards, the Court held it to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to allow a per se exception from compliance with the rule of announcement2 whenever a search warrant is exe-*785cubed seeking evidence of felony drug delivery or dealing. This court had established this per se exception in State v. Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d 410 (1994) and State v. Richards, 201 Wis. 2d 845, 549 N.W.2d 218 (1996). Based upon the Supreme Court decision, the defendants in this case moved to suppress evidence seized by the police arguing that the police had made a no-knock entry that was constitutionally unreasonable. The State conceded that the officers' no-knock entry into the residence was not reasonable under Richards. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to suppress evidence. The court of appeals summarily affirmed the suppression order. This court granted the State's petition for review pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1).
¶ 5. In Ward, we considered the impact of the Richards decision on evidence seized while our rule in State v. Richards and Stevens was the law of the land. We concluded that evidence seized in compliance with our rule was admissible under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and art. I, § 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Therefore, pursuant to our reasoning set forth in Ward, we conclude that the evidence seized in this case is also admissible.3
By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit *786court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 The Uniform Controlled Substances Act is contained in ch. 961 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

 The rule of announcement requires police to follow three steps prior to forcibly entering a home to execute a search warrant: announce their identity, announce their purpose and wait for the occupants to either open the door or refuse to admit the officers. State v. Stevens, 181 Wis. 2d 410, 423, 511 N.W.2d 591 *785(1994) (quoting State v. Cleveland, 118 Wis. 2d 615, 622, 348 N.W.2d 512 (1984)).

 The State also argues that the exclusionary rule does not generally apply to evidence seized in the execution of a search warrant after a violation of the rule of announcement. As we noted in State v. Ward, 2000 WI 3, ¶ 46 n.7, 231 Wis. 2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517, because defendants' motion to suppress is denied on other grounds, we need not address this issue.