APPEALS COURT THROWS OUT MAN' ' S CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA

WAUSAU, Wis. (AP) -- An Antigo man was wrongly convicted of possessing
marijuana because a policeman unlawfully invaded the man' s home and
then smelled the odor of burning marijuana, a state appeals court
ruled today.

At issue was whether a porch area immediately outside the back door of
Michael Wilson' s home was an area in which he had a reasonable
expectation of privacy.

In overturning the conviction, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled
the porch area was " intimately related to Wilson' s home activities"
and thus constitutionally protected against unreasonable police searches.

The officer' s " intrusion into this area ... was without legal
authority and consequently his discovery of marijuana odor was without
legal justification, " the three-judge panel said.

Antigo Policeman Kevin Ison went to Wilson' s home March 8, 1997,
suspecting a juvenile girl wanted as a runaway might be at the home,
court records said.

Ison asked a child playing in the back yard if she had seen the wanted
girl. When the child said no, Ison asked the child if her parents were
home and then followed the child to the back door, where he detected
the smell of marijuana odor coming from the basement, court records
said.

When Wilson emerged from the basement, the officer asked about the
odor. Ison refused to allow Wilson to leave to go to the bathroom,
searched the suspect and found a plastic bag containing what appeared
to be marijuana, court records said.

Wilson was arrested and gave statements to police.

Langlade County Judge James Jansen rejected Wilson' s argument that
Ison had invaded the privacy of Wilson' s home before obtaining the
harmful evidence.

Wilson then pleaded guilty to his second offense of possessing
marijuana, court records said. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and
his driver' s license was revoked for six months.

In ordering a new trial today, the appeals court said prosecutors
cannot use any evidence seized from Wilson because it was illegally
obtained nor can they use his confession because it was related to the
illegally seized evidence.