HIGH COURT REVERSES DECISIONS SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE IN DRUG CASES

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - The state Supreme Court reinstated a man's drug
conviction Wednesday, ruling that an appeals court was wrong to suppress
evidence seized after police searched his home in 1996.

The ruling overturned a decision from the 4th District Court of Appeals,
which threw out Lance Ward' s 1997 conviction for five drug offenses,
including possession of 180 grams of cocaine and more than 2,500 grams of
marijuana.

The appeals court said evidence that Ward was a drug dealer was not enough
to get a warrant to search his home. The state appealed that decision to
the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Beloit police had obtained a search warrant to search Ward's home after
receiving a tip that he supplied marijuana to dealers, according to court
records. In December 1996, they broke down his door and seized drugs.

At the time of the search, a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision had said
police did not have to announce themselves to search a home in a drug case.
But three months later, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that ruling
regarding "no-knock" searches.

Ward's attorneys argued to the state's high court that the no-knock search
violated his constitutional rights and was another reason for the drug
evidence to be ruled inadmissible.

In its 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court said the officers who
conducted the search of Ward' s home were following the law in Wisconsin
"as articulated by this court."

"The greenest law student, the savviest defense counsel, and a roomful of
law professors would have reached the same conclusion," Justice William
Bablitch wrote for the majority.

Bablitch said the court could not say that the change in the interpretation
of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court " has somehow transformed
the character of the evidence seized at the Ward home into something so
tainted that it mars judicial integrity."

However, Daniel Dunn, Ward' s attorney, called the ruling "a direct attack
on the 4th Amendment."

Ward was sentenced to a five-year prison term and had been out on bail
pending the conclusion of his appeal, Dunn said.

The high court' s decision also covered a Racine County case in which
police searched a home, finding drugs and weapons. At a circuit court
preliminary hearing held after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, attorneys for
Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz successfully moved to have the evidence
suppressed. Prosecutors appealed.

In a separate opinion Wednesday, the high court' s majority overruled a
decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals' to uphold the suppression of
evidence found in the Orta-Ruiz home.

The state Supreme Court sent the case back to the circuit court for trial.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Kleinmaier said there are between eight
and 10 cases pending before the state Supreme Court that may be affected by
Wednesday' s ruling.

"The majority opinion here refers to a narrow band of cases," Kleinmaier said.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, joined by
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, said she feared the majority opinion would apply
to any appeals court or state Supreme Court decision authorizing a search
when that decision is later found unconstitutional.

The court' s majority also rejected Ward' s arguments that there was not
enough evidence for a court magistrate to grant a search warrant in his
case. Because there was evidence Ward sold drugs, it was reasonable for
police to believe they would find evidence he dealt drugs by searching his
home, the majority said.

Abrahamson, also joined by Justice David Prosser in the first part of her
dissenting opinion, said there was no link in the warrant application
between Ward' s home and his drug-dealing activities to establish they had
reason to believe they would find drugs or other illegal items inside his
home.