Confirm favorite deletion?
Criminal Procedure Keyed to Dressler
Richards v. Wisconsin
Citation:520 U.S. 385, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
On December 31, 1991, police executed a search warrant for the motel room of the defendant for drugs and related paraphernalia. The search warrant was the culmination of an investigation that had uncovered substantial evidence that the defendant was one of several individuals dealing drugs out of hotel rooms. They did not knock and announce prior to their entry. They kicked in the door and drugs were seized.
The defendant made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search on the ground that the officers had failed to knock and announce their presence prior to forcing entry into the room. The trial court denied the motion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that police in Wisconsin do not need specific information about dangerousness, or the possible destruction of drugs in a particular case, in order to dispense with the knock-and-announce requirement in felony drug cases.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.