Errata: State v. Kimy E. Trotter
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 97-3152-CR STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV FILED STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, October 30, 1998 CLERK OF COURT Of APPEALS OF WISCONSIN V. KIMY E. TROTTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ERRATA SHEET Marilyn L. Graves Clerk of Court of Appeals P.O. Box 1688 Madison, WI 53701-1688 Court of Appeals District I 633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400 Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918 Court of Appeals District II 2727 N. Grandview Blvd. Waukesha, WI 53188-1672 Court of Appeals District IV 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Court of Appeals District III 740 Third Street Wausau, WI 54403-5784 Hon. James Welker, Trial Judge County Building 250 Garden Lane Beloit, WI 53511 Jennifer Krapf Administrative Assistant 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Judi Farmer, Court Services Supervisor - 96-CF-1085B 250 Garden Lane Beloit, WI 53511 Peg Carlson Chief Staff Attorney 119 Martin Luther King Blvd. Madison, WI 53703 Daniel J. O'Brien Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 William E. Schmaal NO. 97-3152-CR Asst. State Public Defender P.O. Box 7862 Madison, WI 53707-7862 Asst. Dist. Atty., Rock County 250 Garden Lane Beloit, WI 53511 Jodi D. Bollendorf PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached pages 3 and 4 are to be substituted for pages 3 and 4 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on September 17, 1998. 2 NO. 97-3152-CR can be reasonably defined based on the circumstances of the situation without giving the police unbridled authority to search. And, under the facts at issue here, the car driven by Trotter clearly pertain[ed] to the premises because it was Trotter s car and it stopped at the home immediately before it was searched. Trotter next argues that the search was outside of the scope of the warrant because it took place several blocks away from her home. We disagree. Under the circumstances presented, the car was sufficiently near the home when it was searched to fall within the scope of the warrant. It was reasonable for the police to conclude that it would be a safety risk to simultaneously search the car in the driveway and execute the warrant to the house, especially because the additional officers who were going to execute the warrant for the house had not yet arrived. The officer s decision to stop the car somewhat away from the house both provided a measure of safety and ensured that anyone in the home would not have advance notice before the warrant was executed. Under these circumstances, the police officer s search several blocks from the home fell within the scope of the warrant. Trotter next argues that the warrant, as it pertained to the premises, was not supported by probable cause and that it was overbroad in its description of the residence to be searched. Trotter did not, however, raise these arguments with specificity until after she had been convicted. In fact, Trotter conceded at the suppression hearing that there was probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant as it pertained to the residence. Because Trotter did not timely raise these issues, we conclude that she has waived her right to have the arguments 3 NO. 97-3152-CR considered during postconviction proceedings and on appeal. Cf. State v. Caban, 210 Wis.2d 598, 604-05, 563 N.W.2d 501, 505 (1997).1 By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS. 1 Trotter also requests that we use our discretionary authority under ยง 752.35, STATS., to reverse. We decline to do so. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
