# State v. Lange

> Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · October 16, 1990 · 158 Wis. 2d 609

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737482

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William M. LANGE, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
- **Decided:** October 16, 1990
- **Citations:** 158 Wis. 2d 609; 463 N.W.2d 390; 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 990
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by LaROCQUE
- **Judges:** Cane, LaROCQUE, LaRocque, Myse
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737482

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a *462 garden from which a marijuana bud was seized was within the curtilage of the defendant’s property because it was within ten yards of the home, within a tree boundary, and was used for laundry and vegetable gardening and that curtilage is automatically entit…
- holding that a garden from which a marijuana bud was seized was within the curtilage of the defendant's property because it was within ten yards of the home, within a tree boundary, and was used for laundry and vegetable gardening and that curtilage is automatically entitled t…

## Opinion text

LaROCQUE, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. The Murray decision has no application here. Murray deals with the police failure to mention to the issuing magistrate *629 the fact of their illegal forced entry into the subject warehouse where they observed hundreds of bales of marijuana. This case is controlled by Karo. That case also involved an illegal pre-warrant police search, but those facts were presented to the magistrate in the search warrant affidavit. Karo holds that if sufficient untainted evidence is included in the application for a search warrant, the warrant is valid. The majority here notes that Murray makes no mention of Karo, yet, if the facts here are controlled by Murray, then Karo is overruled. I believe that Murray does not mention Karo, decided only four years earlier, because the cases deal with different circumstances.
I would reverse the order suppressing the evidence based upon the conclusion reached by both the trial court and this court that there was sufficient evidence to support a search warrant without the clipped marijuana bud.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737482. Public record. Not legal advice.