## Facts

- A Milwaukee police detective surveilling suspected drug activity saw Jermichael James Carroll drive away at high speed and pursued him.
- After the chase ended, the detective ordered Carroll to show his hands and drop what he was holding; Carroll dropped a cell phone.
- Once the phone was in police possession, its screen displayed a background image depicting a marijuana blunt.
- The detective then manipulated the phone by scrolling through its image gallery, viewing photos of drugs, firearms, currency, and an image of Carroll holding a semiautomatic firearm.
- While holding the phone, the detective answered an incoming call and believed the caller was attempting to buy cocaine.
- Police later obtained a search warrant for the phone and used the firearm photo to charge Carroll with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The circuit court suppressed the phone evidence as the product of an unlawful warrantless search that tainted the warrant.
- The court of appeals reversed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether observing the phone’s background image, scrolling through the image gallery, and answering an incoming call constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
2. If any warrantless search occurred, whether it was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement.
3. Whether the later search warrant was tainted by prior illegality and, if so, whether suppression was required.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and reversed the suppression order.
- The court held that viewing the phone’s background image, visible upon lawful seizure, was permissible under plain-view principles.
- The court concluded suppression was not required for evidence obtained under the subsequent warrant because the warrant was supported by probable cause even after excising any potentially tainted information.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When police lawfully possess an item, information immediately visible without further manipulation may be observed under plain-view doctrine.
- If a warrant affidavit contains unlawfully obtained information, a court may excise that material and uphold the warrant if the remaining content establishes probable cause.
- The exclusionary rule applies only where there is a sufficient causal connection between illegality and the challenged evidence; suppression is not automatic.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the prosecution to use evidence obtained from a warranted search of a seized cell phone, reasoning that the phone’s screen image was in plain view and that, even assuming some prior conduct was improper, the warrant stood on independent probable cause after severing any tainted material.


State v. Carroll, 778 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2010)