State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner v. Rayshun D. Eason, Defendant-Respondent

Summary

The court held that the affidavit did not establish the particularized reasonable suspicion required to authorize a no-knock entry, because it relied on vague arrest information, generalized drug-related experience, and insufficiently specific evidence of danger or destruction of evidence. Nevertheless, the court adopted a Wisconsin constitutional good-faith exception and held that suppression was unwarranted because the officers objectively relied on a facially valid warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate after a significant investigation and knowledgeable review. Justices Abrahamson and Prosser, dissenting, would have rejected the good-faith exception and continued to require suppression.