Home / Badge Abuse / State Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need a Warrant to Enter Homes and Seize Evidence

State Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need a Warrant to Enter Homes and Seize Evidence


The Wisconsin Supreme Court just dealt a death blow to the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect a citizen against unreasonable search and seizure. What’s more, the decision was made by a single, newly-appointed judge who was not even present when arguments were made in court.

In a 4-3 decision, the state’s highest court ruled that evidence seized in a person’s private home during a warrantless search can be used against the person under an expanded view of the “community caretaker” clause.

Police went to Charles Matalonis’ house after his brother was found bloodied at a nearby residence. Matalonis, admitting he fought with his brother, let the cops in, where they saw blood in the apartment and some cannabis. They wanted to look inside a locked room, and when Matalonis refused to unlock it, the cops broke in. There they found a cannabis growing setup, whereupon Matalonis was arrested and charged with manufacture of cannabis.

The Court of Appeals had previously ruled this to be an unreasonable search. However, in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, “Justice Annette Ziegler found that police were not investigating a crime but exercising their “community caretaker” function by checking to make sure no other injured people were in the house.”

This was challenged by three other Justices, who argued that “by the time officers entered the locked room, some 20 minutes or more after they had been in the house, there was little reason to suspect someone else was in the bedroom, but plenty of reason to suspect it might house marijuana.”

If the case had remained deadlocked at 3-3, then the Court of Appeals ruling that the evidence should be suppressed would have stood. But in a move that is without precedent in the U.S. or the Wisconsin Supreme Courts, newly-appointed Justice Rebecca Bradley cast the deciding vote without participating in oral arguments.

No precedent appears to exist in the United States Supreme Court or in this court for a new justice who did not participate in oral argument to participate in the case without re-argument,” said Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Bradley was appointed by Governor Scott Walker after Justice Patrick Crooks passed away on Sept. 21, and is now running for election. Bradley had not participated in five earlier cases since her appointment, but decided to chime in on this one. She believed that listening to taped recordings of the arguments, instead of being there in person and involved, was sufficient for her to make the call.

So, an unelected judge appointed by a partisan politician cast a single vote, without being present during arguments, which effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment in that state. Now in Wisconsin, cops can enter a person’s home without a warrant, seize evidence and use it against the person.

The irony is that this attack on the Fourth Amendment is being carried out under the guise of cops being “community caretakers.” In other words, the state presumes that it is doing what’s best for the common good by violating the rights of the individual.

  • Help us spread this important information by clicking (Y) + Commenting + Sharing this story. Thank you.

  • Lawrence Neal

    He LET them in. Never open the door for SA, never let the SA in, without a warrant. Once you let them in, you tacitly agree to let them search.

  • Raymond Ogden

    Yeah. Normally I agree with TFT, but in this case, they’re being a little bit cagey with their language. Yes, the sentence “police can enter your home without a warrant” is technically accurate, but I feel like the clause “with the owner’s permission” was intentionally left out to sensationalize the story and give the less studious reader the impression that a government takeover is currently in progress.

    • Tom Butler

      No it wasn’t. If you read the whole article, although he let them in to the house, he refused them entry into a locked room and they proceeded anyway. They entered that part of the house without a warrant with very specious reasoning and the court didn’t want to take that away.

      • D

        I don’t think he’s referring to the case, but the conclusion the article draws based on the ruling.

      • Brad Schlag

        We’ll assume you meant “suspicious reasoning”. They know you just beat up your brother, you let them in and in plain sight they see pot (another crime) and someone’s blood. Most people’s homes don’t have visible blood. They also see a locked door. They know you are capable of violence, of course they need to make sure you don’t have someone tied and gagged, unconscious or scared to call out behind the door. Not to mention these judges heard the whole case and specifics not covered in this article.

    • Rob Olson

      You seem to forget the rest of it. The homeowner can remove his/her permission at any time. The cops then need to leave and get a warrant. They can NOT continue to search the home.

      • Cody Hutton

        Wrong. If officers have reasonable doubt that a crime is happening they can investigate all they want. For instance if a woman was in her home screaming bloody murder an officer can kick in a door to investigate.

        Unless, you know, you want the woman being raped and murdered to wait for a warrant.

        • Rob Olson

          Please show where in the 4th amendment it says that. I have read it and read it and all I can find is cops need a warrant.

      • Douglas Bartelt

        Unless there is probable cause. Blood on the floor and weed visable is more than enough.

        • Rob Olson

          Where in the 4th amendment does it say that? Here is a copy of the bill of rights. Show me.

  • ftb88

    I assume the beat up brother ratted him out,so the cops new what they were looking for.

  • What. The. Fuck.

  • Thank you Winsconsin! For giving me and millions of others yet another reason not to live there.

  • Jake Hunter

  • I expect there will be a corresponding increase in self-defense claims of homeowners against home invaders.

  • Fascism on the rise!

  • And it’s out right to shoot first, ask questions later.

  • Little by little

  • Not good

  • Hahahahahah! Try thay shit in alaska! That’s a fast ticket to getting shot on the spot!

  • Sick,..and Stupid,…

  • …and the police state grows.

  • Let me guess all the pro-government people are cool with this too? Where are all you guys at??

    • Wtf is this true and in wy ???

    • No not yet but it only takes one state to cross the line before it catches on and moves to others..

    • Right that’s bullshit

  • Stephana Femino

    • That’s nuts! But I doubt it will stand. They will appeal it to the US Supreme Court & hopefully it will get reversed. Unbelievable though & completely frightening!

  • Wtf…smh

  • Scott Walker just needa yo die if a brain anurism

  • This will over turned the state cannot change the bill of rights to satisfy their own illegal actions.

  • thats a good way to get yourself killed cop

  • I do not look forward to the mounting death toll in the police state. if the citizens may take up arms and defend themselves upon the police and the courts that are usurping the Constitution state legislators are but men

  • I won’t even go to Miami for a free vacation because of the reputation of American police. I’ve seen some do illegal searches and kill dogs or shoot children in the process. If you can’t do your job right you should go for retraining not get more privileges.

  • What an embarassment for the legal community.

  • You are shitting me.

  • Let’s go live in Russia.
    I can handle a Gulag!

  • History

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    History and Scope of the Amendment

    History.—Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the “writs of assistance.” But while the insistence on freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as a fundamental right gained expression in the Colonies late and as a result of experience,1 there was also a rich English experience to draw on. “Every man’s house is his castle” was a maxim much celebrated in England, as was demonstrated in Semayne’s Case, decided in 1603.2 A civil case of execution of process, Semayne’s Case nonetheless recognized the right of the homeowner to defend his house against unlawful entry even by the King’s agents, but at the same time recognized the authority of the appropriate officers to break and enter upon notice in order to arrest or to execute the King’s process. Most famous of the English cases was Entick v. Carrington,3 one of a series of civil actions against state officers who, pursuant to general warrants, had raided many homes and other places in search of materials connected with John Wilkes’ polemical pamphlets attacking not only governmental policies but the King himself.4

    1 Apparently the first statement of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures appeared in The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights, 1772, in the drafting of which Samuel Adams took the lead. 1 B. SCHWARTZ, THE BILL OF RIGHTS: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY 199, 205-06 (1971).

    2 5 Coke’s Repts. 91a, 77 Eng. Rep. 194 (K.B. 1604). One of the most forceful expressions of the maxim was that of William Pitt in Parliament in 1763: “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

    3 19 Howell’s State Trials 1029, 95 Eng. 807 (1705).

    4 See also Wilkes v. Wood, 98 Eng. 489 (C.P. 1763); Huckle v. Money, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (K.B. 1763), aff’d 19 Howell’s State Trials 1002, 1028; 97 Eng. Rep. 1075 (K.B. 1765).

    Entick, an associate of Wilkes, sued because agents had forcibly broken into his house, broken into locked desks and boxes, and seized many printed charts, pamphlets and the like. In an opinion sweeping in terms, the court declared the warrant and the behavior it authorized subversive “of all the comforts of society,” and the issuance of a warrant for the seizure of all of a person’s papers rather than only those alleged to be criminal in nature “contrary to the genius of the law of England.”5 Besides its general character, said the court, the warrant was bad because it was not issued on a showing of probable cause and no record was required to be made of what had been seized. Entick v. Carrington, the Supreme Court has said, is a “great judgment,” “one of the landmarks of English liberty,” “one of the permanent monuments of the British Constitution,” and a guide to an understanding of what the Framers meant in writing the Fourth Amendment.6

    In the colonies, smuggling rather than seditious libel afforded the leading examples of the necessity for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize “prohibited and uncustomed” goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. The writs once issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, opposition was led by James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism.7 Otis lost and the writs were issued and utilized, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.

    5 95 Eng. 817, 818.

    6 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 626 (1886).

    7 The arguments of Otis and others as well as much background material are contained in Quincy’s MASSACHUSETTS REPORTS, 1761-1772, App. I, pp. 395-540, and in 2 LEGAL PAPERS OF JOHN ADAMS 106-47 (Wroth & Zobel eds., 1965). See also Dickerson, Writs of Assistance as a Cause of the American Revolution, in THE ERA OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: STUDIES INSCRIBED TO EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE 40 (R. Morris, ed., 1939).

  • This could not stand up in court if properly challenged.

  • This is getting soooo out of hand.

  • So the law-enforcement are above the law? That’s not law-enforcement that’s a criminal enterprise

  • Since when did a state Supreme Court decision trump the US Constitution?

  • Well we will see you again in supreme court again. Good Luck with that one.

  • So they can change the 4th amendment but the 2nd amendment is untouchable? Hypocrisy at its worst.

    • You can change anything about the Constitution if the proper steps are taken. Unfortunately state and federal government do not care about that. Neither do the majority of plebs in the United States.

  • Re-reading 1984. This sounds familiar.

  • So sounds like the beginning of the end.

  • Don’t talk to police. Don’t answer the door for police. If arrested immediately ask for a lawyer and stfu. This will prevent 90% of the issues we see with corrupt police behavior.

  • Gavin

  • Goddamned motherfucking public education system. Does anybody know how to READ?. They already had that authority. If evidence of a crime is visible, they don’t need a warrant, and in this case, it was not only visible but they actually had permission to be there. The decision applies only to this and similar cases, not to the 4th amendment as a whole.

  • Definitely becoming more and more a police state there need`s to be action taken here because we know who the intended target`s are i never heard of an intruder breaking into your home to greet you, could this be a dress rehearsal for the real thing NWO Roundup ?

    • Evidence can not be seen if it`s your home and the doors are closed that`s like searching your car and there is no plan evidence in plain sight and without a search warrant you don`t have to by law to submit to a search if a crime has not been committed but than again the system can very well do what they please even murder of innocent people

    • They come here they’ll worry about Police state I can’t abide that either!!

  • Wisconsin… go figure.

  • This is how Liberty dies

  • Now altogether repeat after me:

    “We are free…we are free…we are free.”

  • First off, the gentleman in question let the police in and was in the middle of a domestic dispute. Second the police discovered blood and drugs in the residence the gentleman allowed the police to enter. Then the man doesn’t want to allow thrm to enter a certain room. It’s probable cause. If the guy was violent enough to draw blood and fight with his brother, who’s to say he didn’t hurt someone else? (They could be dead, gagged, or unconscious in that room) I don’t think the verdict will change.

    • Be that as it may, the article indicates that the ruling now in Wisconsin is that a LEO may enter a home without a warrant, search and seize any evidence of a crime, then arrest the people. That in itself is not right.

    • Shailee Marshall curin … Your missing the whole point… The big picture…

    • Fuck your stupid. Go back to your fucking rock you live under. The problem with america is this exact situation. The gov pulls rights and the majority you people are too down right dumb, like really fucking dumb. Its scary to think about..

    • and now you get f**ked up, this domestic dispute is just an simple example of more worse rules to come. In due time all your constitutional rights will be stripped away.

    • The guy LET the police inside. It’s no longer against your 4th amendment right. Had the gentleman turned the police away he wouldn’t have had this problem.
      The police can’t do anything without a warrant or if the victim is no longer on the premises. The guy criminalized himself by allowing the police in the residence. In the article it does say police found the blood and a smaller amount of drugs PRIOR to entering the room. Therefore those two things alone were probable cause to enter the locked room. Any observations made by police while in your home can be used against you. If you don’t want to criminalize yourself refuse entry. If he had refused entry they’d of had to get a search warrant.
      Honestly the Community Caretaker Clause is no different than the implied powers that are given to congress.
      The Cady v Dombrowski case in 1973 enacted this clause by the way so this is NOT a new thing.

    • Wazzy Wazzy, the sheep are indeed dumbed down to no end, and with the continual fluoriation, indoctrination and brainwashing it’s just going to continue. I see and hear them daily and wonder how in the fuk they can even walk and chew gum at the same time.

  • Do they even read the US Constitution before considering shit like this?

    • Did you even bother to read the article? They had permission to enter. The headline is bullshit. BTW, love your wallpaper.

    • Yes the police were let into the house but denied access to that particular room. A person has the right to deny access to part or all of his home and police are required to obtain a warrant to search locked areas unless they believe a human life is in danger. Without satisfying that requirement or consent of the owner, the said search is invalid and inadmissible in court. What the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has done overrides the US
      Constitution and will not stand up in Federal court. We as citizens of USA must stand against any infringement of our constitutional rights as government and courts seek to limit them.

  • The supreme court killed it a long time ago

  • And they will be planting drugs and taking ppls homes.

  • this is vary dangerious this is police state

  • Billy Rikard

  • Good way to get ride of cops

  • Nazis are coming

  • Jxsvs Pieces

  • I don’t know if I can believe this. Need more information

  • This bad news.. And need to be challenge

  • Lock and load.

  • Wellbfuck

  • Neil Rentz

  • But first they have to plant it….

  • Police state is here, it’s real, and you can’t do anything to stop it… apart stop paying taxes, all together.

    • Leave the country.

    • Suck balls idiot.

    • Yo I’m with you Marco. #PoliceThePolice

    • You have to get the ignorant sheep to learn what the LEGAL definition of INCOME is first, then maybe they would grow some balls and tell the foreign entity revenue sucking parasites to fuk off. Until then the sheep will continue to keep paying those taxes to keep paying off that fraudulent debt and the other bogus taxes, thereby supporting the beast that keeps slinging the whip on them. It’s their fukin ignorance, and that ignorance induces their fears of the big bad “government”, or corporation which it really is.

  • BullShit! Without immediate probable cause, search and seizure requires a warrant. That is a Constitutionally protected right. What The Fuck!

  • Matthew Vick

  • If it goes to the Supreme Court, Scalia will be missed.

  • disgusting

  • Things are becoming a little unsettling.

  • nazi germany anyone. If a person enters your home without consent they must be ready to face death!!! badges? we don’t need no stinking badges.!

  • Why are you guys pretending this ruling is valid? Any ruling contrary to the Constitution is null, void and worthless. Police still need a warrant and any attempts at breaking and entering should result is the immediate expulsion of the intruder

    • Lol constitution, good one. Good thing we have a constitutional lawyer as Lord commander in the high Castle.

    • Because the Constitution has stopped every other violation of our rights, right? Lol, laughable at best.

  • Why?

  • get rid of these leg. soon . and repeal everything they do..

  • You Americans are fucked.

  • Best thing people can do is move out of the state of Wisconsin.

  • That is home invasion

  • I find this hard to believe

  • Savana Fox

  • Bullet proof vest don’t protect the face…. Just saying

  • great I hope we can still shoot intruders and uidentified threats.

  • They also have the right to be shot upon entering.

  • Hell will break loose. Pictures of nightly gestapo visites spring to mind. By George!

  • Bull ish they come in without me knowing there might be an accident not In the cops favor and I’m deaf so who’s fault is it? I don’t hear their warnings and the invade my space….

  • That is a declaration of war and will eventually turn ugly for the tyrants. Good luck on your genocidal crucade courts of foreign power.

  • Why did this guy let them in anyway? NEVER let the cops into your home to search… or even just to talk. You open the door as YOU slide out and close it behind you. Do not give the cops the chance to even put a foot in the way of the door as it closes because they WILL … and then they will claim you attacked them with the door unless you let them in to search. Cops are the enemy – and fuck any of you cops reading this that may try to argue the point. Cops … are … the … enemy. Their job is you extort money out of you for the system. If they can’t figure out a way to extort money out of you for fines … their job is to find a way to lock you up so the state can benefit from your labor. Cops are the ENEMY… period.

  • If some fuck tries to enter my home unwarranted they’re getting sprayed.

  • Fuuccckkkkk no I’m shooting whoever enter my shit without permission

  • Time for an armed revolution… Our own govt spits in the faces of Americans…does whatever the fuck they want at our expense…fuck these mother fuckers and anyone who backs them..

  • That would still fall under self defense . So I hope there all prepared for the repercussions

  • Katie Davis

  • Lls I think the government has forgotten the fact that if all of the citizens stood up as one they wouldn’t stand a chance. People need to speak up more and open there eyes. That’s why the world is the way it is now is because people chose to feed into the Bulls..t government propaganda rather than do some actual research themselves to realize the truth.

    • Everyone is sedated by the fluoride in the water, that is how they keep us from standing up and uniting for the greatest good for all.

  • That will be shot down.

  • I’m beginning to understand why Americans need guns.

    • Yep, it really makes me wish that I was living in Europe, right now.

  • Still No One Stand Up And Free American People From This DemoCRAZY & Anti Constitutional The Regime Has Already Put American Without Any Basic Human Rights At All … Or Still Just Sit, Watch TV & Drink A Beer Can Like A Coward Sheep…

  • Isn’t that like giving the keys of the bank to the bank robber.

  • Home invasion ?

  • Reminds me to stay the hell away from wisconSIN !!!!

  • The second any of the shots enter my home, they are dead.

  • You come up in my house without a warrant ya Asa is bound to catch a bullet

  • state law doesn’t trump the constitution.

  • Horrible. This should be appealled.

  • and get shot!!!!

  • Hog wash.. Pew pew

  • you mean to say that the law has just turned cops into thugs.. amazing, feel like clapping!!

  • just a death wish ! its part of their two a day (murders) thugs in uniform, filth. QED

  • I’m sure Americans can shoot people braking into there homes…. maybe this is a way to kill off the whole USA police Forse cause in some way there all bent as fuck

  • i would move away from that police state

  • thats bullshit but that means they bust the door without warrant there breaking in and you can shoot to kill them what happens then

  • This was already included in the NDAA of 2010. I’m surprised that people are just now catching/waking up to it. Literally. LOL

  • LOLif they do at my house I shot first so go ahead come on in and die

  • Tedd Jorge Janice Adam Kenneth Veronica Anna Collette James Rob Canelon

  • Walk into my house without a warrant and you’ll be shot dead

  • The human rights declaration has been violated since its aproval! So the rules has all the rights to violate our rights. ..

  • I don’t know how they could do that. I wasn’t sure how WA did it.

  • Patrick Henry

    Since this violates the CONSTITUTION it is NULL and Void and carries no force of law. Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):
    “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
    If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

    • James Worzalla

      Tell that to the court of law and see how much it holds up… the facts are, these exceptions are made with the generality and verbiage of the constitution in mind. In this case the 4th amendment a person is protected against “unreasonable” search and seizures. what determines unreasonable? it has been determined though not completely thorough through a multitude of case laws. I’ll let you do the research

  • Randall Covey

    Another “successful” fishing expedition… the cops will get medals.

  • wtf

  • B.S. F-That!!!

  • Scalia would never approved of this!

  • James Blanton

    This will get appealed to the US Supreme Court and overturned doubt it will stand to US scrutiny.

  • a very bad thing…….

  • I know the law I practice it everyday and from my perspective this is nust another masked step torward communism. The state manipulates and twist just about every crime committed to mold it into as many charges as possible. The same applies with the laws. Every time they pass another law like this it just gives them another lop hole to make a defendants case easier for them to prosecute and sets the standards to ones rights weaker and weaker. Read case law folks. Look at the original intent of a crime then look at how prosecutors continue to manipulate jurers over the years to completely redefine an original intent of a crime so it lowers the standard to get a conviction and opens the door for every other prosecutor to get a conviction and continue to lower the standard till eventually they can turn something a defendant did into a conviction of something completely opposite of what they actually did. Here comes communism folks

  • Heidi

    Death of the 4th Amendment? Not hardly. This exception to the warrant requirement is long established in case law. Further, oral argument is not required. Perhaps someone with some knowledge of jurisprudence and case law should write these articles.

    • Rob Olson

      Maybe you need to learn the constitution

      • Travis LaBranche

        I agree with Heidi. This article has left out many details of the actual case, but without going into all of them, the police officer found drops of blood on the locked door and had an objective reason to believe that someone may be injured because Matalonis’s brother had told the police that he was beaten by four people outside a bar. The police followed the blood trail to Matalonis’s home where he consented to a search. Matalonis lied to the police when he stated that he lived alone. The police officer’s suspicion of Matalonis grew because he appeared nervous when they asked him about the locked room. The officer believed this might be because someone was injured in that room, so the officer located the key to the room and searched it.

        The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be reasonable. Using a reasonable standard, exigent circumstances allow police officers to conduct searches when police are in hot pursuit of a suspect or to render emergency aid. The caretaker provision of Wisconsin law falls under the emergency aid exception the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld. Should this case be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is likely that this ruling will be upheld.

        The court’s opinion can be found below:

        • Rob Olson

          Here is a copy of the bill of rights. Please show me where it says that cops can force their way in without a warrant, and also show me where it says the state supreme court can over rule the bill of rights.

    • Von Arney

      We don’t care about jurisprudence or case law.

      We care about ORIGINAL INTENT.

    • Justin Price

      Um, the 3 dissenting justices themselves said the decision “swallows the 4th amendment.” And the issue is the EXPANSION of the “exception” you mention, called “community caretaker”, not the exception itself.

    • Shane Freund

      You should go take a shit. It’s backing up out of your mouth.

      • jj

        So classy

      • Greg

        So, by the sounds of your expertise in your response, Heidi is correct.

  • Armor piercing rounds always chambered and ready to go. …the door is locked not to protect me but to protect you.

  • WTF, Constitution is twisting in the wind, how can 7 learned Judges, can be this FUCKING DUMB.
    Are we the United States of America or 49 states and Wisconsin.
    Just plain FUCKING FUCKTARDS, how the FUCKTARDS wake up in the morning and try to rewrite a SACRED DOCUMENT of the USA.

  • Duck the police and the government

  • Sounds like people need to vote a few people out of office !!

  • David Hoffman

    Never a good idea to “open the door” for a cop… They DO NOT have your best interest in mind – EVER….

  • Wisconsin State Supreme Court, or the STATE OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ? Which one is it ? The corporate one that is ASSUMING authority to RULE on STATUTES, ACTS, and CODES of the corporation and thus allowing the corporation to enforce those RULES on the PRESUMED CITIZENS SUBJECT to a PRESUMED LEGAL FICTION to abide by those corporate CODES, or the one which is supposed to be Constitutionally Lawful and abides by the Constitution.


  • Wow, how stupid.

  • outright bullshit

  • WTF?!

  • Let it be known, If you come into my house without me, asking you , YOU WILL DIE! I DO NOT Care what kind of Suit You are wearring.The COTUS,Supper seeds any state law, Passed by a ——– Well , you get the idea.

  • Then again and i again i just HATE PIGS……….


    • NOT illegal. They had permission to enter, and observed evidence. Did you bother to read the article?


    • Speeding is not probable cause to search, and you still choose to ignore that they HAD PERMISSION. DAFIOH

  • I’ve Ben violated left and right

  • Brandon Miklaski

  • Sg Harley


  • Scary!

  • Blame these clock suckers!!!

  • And these fuck nuts!!!

  • Just remember. …

  • Don’t you all know Wisconsin is run by idiots that want to take away all of your rights.


  • “By the people” means the people chose and the government enforces. Government is taking it upon themselves to create socialistic rules. People… think about your vote.

  • Rawleye

    According to the article it was 4 votes not a single vote that changed the decision. Despite whether it was the right decision or not, I don’t understand the uproar about the judge not being there. If she listened to the arguments and read written documents of what was said (I assume they record “minutes”). Why wouldn’t that be sufficient?

  • The tyrant states of America. It is the fault of the Unconscious, cowardly American peasant. American is a hopeless, lost cause because these peasants are unconscious animals, human cattle that have been herded up by their evil masters ( all government that currently infests America)! Americans are breathtakingly stupid peasants!

  • so that needs to be stopped


  • Cam Alft

    never let cops into your home….they are criminals with a badge!

    • Greg

      Until you need one, then you’re all “Yes sir, thank you for coming”.

      • Cam Alft

        nope,never once,don’t need them!in fact the last time one was out to our clubhouse he was drunk and waving his gun around like a prince,we shut him down and threw him into his truck!i can tell you about the time i had to go toe to toe with a few,or the time i got the best of one trying to kiddnap my daughter,we can go there!,i never call the cops!i take care of my own shit!and when or if i get the worst,it’s just go home lick your wounds and come back out for another day,no cops!!and i never say thanks to a thief or rapists!!why…would you?sick f’kn world we live in eh?

      • Corey Felsman

        That’s the problem. People these days they’re too scared to even call the police when they need them. My 9 year old sister even knows this a kid in class was bullying her and my mom says to her “well do you want me to call the cops” and she says “no way I want her to be nice not beaten to death”.

  • Its called Treason

  • that would go against the constitution

  • Wow??

  • :/

  • Then EFF the State!

  • Yeah right.

  • All they need to do is take it to the supreme court.

  • no longer need warrants ? time to start shooting the fucking clowns then . btw…. someone should name all who signed this bill and there start a mass tort lawsuit against them . nothing should ever trump your con

  • Hey, that’s where they made Making a Murderer, so this corruption and support of illegal police activity shouldn’t really surprise anyone, though it should ALARM everyone..

  • Lorraine Tipton You must be so happy you got out of that place.

  • Ken Morrow

    So the remedy is don’t open the door.

  • I am seeking Private Individuals to Unite to create our own Private Membership Association so we will not be defined under the U.C.C. As ” INTERFERING IN COMMERCE” so we the people can and will make a difference for ALL MEMBERS IN MULTIPLE WAYS using the CORRECT STRUCTURES both NATIONALLY and INTERNATIONALLY!!! Feel free to email me if interested in GOING AROUND THE PUBLIC IN A Private Way instead of getting constantly upset at always going through THE PUBLIC MARTIAL LAW JURISDICTIONS!!!
    EMAIL: [email protected]

  • Nothing to be alarmed about. Relax. Don’t get nervous. Watch a movie:


  • Dan Wood

    The author of this article needs to go back to clown college or wherever he learned about the law. This is clearly a case in which the 4th amendment exception applies. Plain view and exigent circumstances (the blood.)

    • Rob Olson

      When did cops learn to see through walls. People like you are the reason cops and politicians keep steps all over our rights. Stop giving them authorities they don’t and can’t have.

      • Dan Wood

        Uh, in this case the guy let them into his house and they saw blood and cannabis… that’s grounds for a warrant, and to check the house for any more injured parties. I have 16 years in Law Enforcement and The author of this article is playing word games, and is a moron.

        • Rob Olson

          You say they need a warrant, then change your tune and say they don’t need a warrant. You just proved what people say “that cops do have the lowest iq of any profession”.

          • Dan Wood

            You don’t understand written English apparently; they COULD have gotten a warrant BASED ON THE PLAIN VIEW EVIDENCE, but since there was a violent fight they were ok to search the house for other injured people WITHOUT A WARRANT because of the blood they saw when they were INVITED into the house. Go read some caselaw before you try to argue about things that you know nothing about. By resorting to petty insults about your perception of law enforcement officers intelligence as a whole, you’re just proving that you’re an “Internet lawyer” since we’re using quotation marks to look cool now.

          • Rob Olson

            I do read English. It is called the constitution. Not some law that allows you criminals with badge to think you can violate it.

          • Rob Olson

            and the quotes aren’t there to be “cool”. They are other because that is what one does when they quote someone.

    • Jason Harrison

      Yes, and what is referred to as “probable cause”

    • Ffi

      “Recognizing exemptions to great principles always creates the hazard, of course, that the exemptions will devour the rule ”
      Justice William Brennan

  • Yankees and liberals let stuff like that happen. Walk into a Texas home with no warrant and see what happens to you. Gun fights are a Texas tradition. My dad’s a sheriff’s deputy and he has told me if anybody (cop, military or otherwise) comes in his house to take anything without a warrant, they will not walk out and I stand by that 100%.

  • Bull shit!! Not right I want abide it!!

  • There has been no change in your own home !! They must have a warrant to search!!

  • Tony

    I have really had it. People running to be our president, just barely smart enough to wipe there red asses. I propose a NEW MODERN CONSTITUTION. I human one vote, no longer 100,000,000.00 per vote. Something is all fucked up. Am I the only person that awake….its like a monty python bad dream

  • Dennis Rogge

    Yeah, so they can enter without a warrant, under the pretense of investigating another ” so called crime” and then bust you out for something as harmless as pot

  • They better stock up on body bags I will shoot the first motherfucker through my door

  • Daniel J Rondello

    Why do Republicans seem to think The United States is a confederacy? It’s not. Federal laws have sovreignity of state laws.

  • Mark Wells

    You have only one chance to refuse a search. Once they are inside your car, home, or have their whole hand shoved up your ass, it’s too late.

  • Dago

    Bullshit hit piece.

  • lordwoodsman

    NO, stop lying. The 4th Amendment is doing just fine. 1) New justice wasn’t on the Supreme Court when the arguments were made, but she is there fulfilling her legal role and did listen to the recordings and heard the other judges positions before voting. 2) Cops can’t just walk into your house without a warrant. But there have always been necessary exceptions to allow them in without one. If you shoot someone and then run into your house or mine, they can follow you in and arrest you. If you INVITE them in (which is the 1st part of what happened here), they can come in. If they see you hitting someone through your big front window or see illegal drugs sitting on your table after inviting you in, that’s called “Plain Sight” and they can enter/use that evidence. That’s the 2nd part of what happened here. If they have reason to believe evidence is about to be destroyed or that someone may be in danger inside, they can enter. And that’s the 3rd part of what happened here. He beat up his brother, they came to talk to him about it and he invited them in. They saw Pot and blood in the apartment and saw a locked door. As he had just beaten someone down the street and they saw blood in the apartment, they were understandable concerned that someone else was hurt in the apartment and may be behind the locked door. I don’t like things that Walker is doing these days either, but lets not take the police and the court doing their job and try to turn it into one more attack against the Gov. If you don’t provide evidence to make Police suspect you are harming someone or leave illegal things in plain sight for them and the community to see, they still can’t come barging into your home.

    • James Worzalla

      I just would like to alter that last statement: the Police can indeed barge into your home under certain circumstance as in the case in State vs Pinkard 2010 WI 81, in which officers received a tip that there were people in a residence that were unconscious within the vicinity of Cocaine. The officers entered the residence to check on the welfare of the occupants, using a concern for possible overdose as a means to enter without warrant.

      There are other cases that unlawful entry can be excused or justified; if the officer acquired evidence lawfully, i.e. via later consent to search (State v. Artic, 2010 WI 83) or, supported by probable cause or “exigent circumstances” (State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80).

      Bottom line, they can enter your home without warrant and seize evidence as long as they can prove their actions were lawful and just.

  • James Worzalla

    unfortunately, under the “community caretaker” exception, an officer can enter search every room in a house if they believe that there is a person in danger. in this case, the officers could have entered the house even without consent or a warrant with reasonable belief that someone inside is seriously injured. Then, conduct a sweep to secure that no one else in the residence was injured or otherwise in danger. This thus extends the plain view doctrine which allows an officer to seize,without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. this in not a new practice and this article is worse than a Fox News report…

  • alexander

    So much for the Republican love of the Constitution !!!

  • Double D

    i think it falls under #2 in this case. he gave consent. but they can only search what is in site of there eyes when given permission to enter with out a warrant. and since they found a violation “the Pot” that gave them the right to search without a warrant. also the fact there was cause to believe that there could be another Victim in the home also gave them the right.

    Wisconsin state statue.

    23.61  Search and seizure; when authorized. A search of a person, object or place may be made and things may be seized when the search is made:

    (1) Incident to a lawful arrest;
    (2) With consent;
    (3) Pursuant to a valid search warrant;
    (4) With the authority and within the scope of a right of lawful inspection;
    (5) Incident to the issuance of a lawfully issued citation under s. 23.60;
    (6) During an authorized temporary questioning under s. 23.59; or
    (7) As otherwise authorized by law.

    History: 1975 c. 365.
    The warrant-less search of a fisherman’s truck by state conservation wardens under s. 29.33 (6) [now s. 29.519 (6)] was presumptively reasonable. State v. Erickson, 101 Wis. 2d 224, 303 N.W.2d 850 (Ct. App. 1981)

  • Ernst Loehl Sr.

    Well I think that now,,,law enforcement are considered ”Community Caretakers,, if I’m out of milk and bread,,for my personal well being,, they should run to the store for me if I’m ill.. See how that plays out !!!

  • Corey Felsman

    That was my first thought.

  • Corey Felsman

    So, maybe this wasn’t the best example to use for this article since it seems like it’s not such ac cut and dry case I mean it does seem like there was probable cause.

  • Iamacitizen2


    The wording used when a person is read the Miranda Warning, also
    known as being ‘Mirandized,’ is clear and direct:

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
    used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you
    cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the
    rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak
    to me?”

    Question: I was not read my Miranda Rights. Will my case be dismissed?

    Answer: Not likely, but possible. It depends on the case, what the issue is and what was
    garnered after the questioning started. A DUI case, as we may have mentioned in
    some earlier discussions, Miranda is generally not quite as important because
    there’s not a lot of evidence taken after the person is put into custody. A
    murder case, if a person’s in custody and they did not read the Miranda and
    then during the interrogation [provide] evidence that proves the murder, that
    might be a case where the case could be dismissed; or, what would happen would
    be the evidence would be excluded, and then without evidence then the case would
    have to be dismissed.