State v. Dixon

1

State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony Donte Dixon, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 2023AP1388-CR, 2023AP1389-CR

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I

January 22, 2025

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

APPEALS from judgments of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Nos. 2020CF2595, 2020CF2688, MICHAEL J. HANRAHAN Judge. Affirmed.

Before Donald, P.J., Geenen and Colon, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Anthony Donte Dixon appeals from judgments convicting him of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon. Dixon argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Upon review, we affirm. We conclude that the officers' entry and sweep of Dixon's residence was proper under the emergency aid doctrine, thus, suppression was not warranted.

BACKGROUND

¶2 This consolidated appeal arises from two trial court cases. In Milwaukee County Circuit Court case No. 2020CF2595, Dixon was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and one count of disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon as a domestic abuse repeater with a domestic abuse modifier. According to the criminal complaint, on July 27 2020, C.G.H. and her live-in boyfriend, Dixon, got into an argument at their home.^[1] During the argument, Dixon lifted up his shirt, revealed a silver firearm on the right side of his waistband, and grabbed the grip of the firearm, which caused C.G.H. to fear for her safety. As C.G.H. attempted to walk away from the residence, she heard a gunshot and saw Dixon with the silver firearm pointing in the air. C.G.H. called 911. Officers responded to the residence and entered believing C.G.H. to be inside. A black firearm was recovered from Dixon's person, and later, after the execution of a search warrant, a silver firearm was located in the residence.^[2] ¶3 In Milwaukee County Circuit Court case No. 2020CF2688, Dixon was initially charged with second-degree recklessly endangering safety using a dangerous weapon, possession of a firearm by a felon, battery, and criminal damage to property. Subsequently, the second-degree recklessly endangering safety count was amended to disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon, and a burglary charge was added. According to the criminal complaint, on July 11, 2020, Dixon went to R.M.K.'s house armed with a silver firearm and punched R.M.K. through the window. Surveillance video from R.M.K.'s residence showed Dixon then fired a round in the direction of the residences across the street. R.M.K. allowed Dixon into his residence and Dixon smashed two televisions. A physical confrontation took place and Dixon left. The complaint further stated that the silver firearm obtained from the search warrant issued in case No. 2020CF2595 matched Dixon's firearm on the surveillance video from R.M.K.'s residence.

¶4 Dixon filed a motion to suppress in case No. 2020CF2595. The motion argued that the police illegally entered and searched Dixon's residence before they obtained a search warrant. As a result, case No. 2020CF2688 was effectively placed on hold as it involved the firearm evidence at issue in the motion to suppress.

¶5 A hearing was held over the course of several days on the motion to suppress. Officers Thomas Ozelie and Stephen Dombrowski testified for the State.

¶6 Officers Ozelie and Dombrowski testified that on July 27 2020, around 2:00 p.m., they received a computer-aided dispatch ("CAD") report informing them of a 911 call.^[3] According to the report, the caller had stated that her live-in boyfriend, whom she identified as Dixon, was drunk and had "fired shots into the air" at their residence. The report also stated that the caller was scared and had left the residence and was waiting at a nearby gas station. The officers ran Dixon's name, which revealed that he had a felony conviction.

¶7 As the officers drove towards the residence, they received new information. According to the updated CAD report, the caller stated that Dixon "is throwing out her stuff," that she "just gave him money," and that he "is trying to put her out."^[4] The caller stated that Dixon had two handguns in the home, one black and one silver, but that she did not see which he had fired into the air.

¶8 Because the update contained new information, including a description of two firearms and the report that Dixon was throwing out the caller's belongings, the officers believed that the caller may have returned to the residence. Officer Ozelie testified that he feared the caller was inside the residence and that someone was potentially hurt based on the allegation that Dixon had fired the gun and there was alcohol involved. Similarly, Officer Dombrowski testified he was worried that the caller might have been shot.

¶9 When the officers arrived at Dixon's residence, the officers did not see anybody or any belongings outside, but heard "extremely loud music" coming from the residence. Officer Dombrowski testified that due to the volume of the music, "you couldn't hear anything inside" and because this was "boyfriend/girlfriend trouble," there was a probability that "something bad could be happening inside ... or had already happened."

¶10 The screen door and the front storm door were open to the residence and Officer Ozelie saw Dixon sitting at his kitchen table. Dixon matched the caller's description "to a T" and Officer Ozelie recognized Dixon from his picture. Officer Ozelie attempted to wave Dixon over to the door, but Dixon used his hand "essentially saying no in a nonverbal way and for us to leave."

¶11 Officers Ozelie and Dombrowski then entered into the residence. Officer Ozelie had a short conversation with Dixon before turning down the music. Soon after, Officer Dombrowski noticed that Dixon had a gun on his right hip and the officers subsequently arrested Dixon. The officers conducted a sweep of the house and found no one else inside. During the sweep, officers observed drugs in plain view in the living room. Based on the drugs and the fact that the caller had stated that Dixon had a second firearm, the officers obtained a search warrant and recovered a second gun.

¶12 The State initially argued that the warrantless entry and sweep was justified by the community caretaker exception, which recognizes that officers may conduct warrantless searches and seizures when "serving as a community caretaker to protect persons and property[.]" See State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, ¶14, 327 Wis.2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592. However, before the motion was decided, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, which held that the community caretaker exception did not apply to warrantless searches of the home. Id., 593 U.S. 194, 196 (2021).

¶13 In light of Caniglia, the State filed a supplemental brief arguing in relevant part that the officers acted in good faith reliance on well-established Wisconsin case law when entering Dixon's residence, thus, suppression was not warranted.^[5] Alternatively, the State argued that exigent circumstances and probable cause existed permitting the officers to enter Dixon's residence.

¶14 The State presented additional testimony from Officer Ozelie and Officer Dombrowski. The officers reiterated that they were concerned that the caller or someone else in the residence was harmed.

¶15 After hearing argument from the parties, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court found that the officers were acting in a "community caretaker function" and the good faith exception applied. The court credited the officers' testimony that they believed the caller had returned to the residence and they had entered "not only out of concern for the caller but also for Dixon himself or any other person who may be in the residence or potentially involved under these circumstances." The trial court did not address whether there was exigent circumstances or probable cause to enter the residence.

¶16 A joint trial took place on case Nos. 2020CF2595 and 2020CF2688.^[6] During the trial, Dixon entered a guilty plea to one count of felon in possession of a firearm in case No. 2020CF2595. Dixon also entered a guilty plea to one count of felon in possession of a firearm and one count of disorderly conduct with the use of a dangerous weapon in case No. 2020CF2688. The remaining charges were dismissed and read-in. The trial court imposed a total sentence of three years and six months of initial confinement and four years of extended supervision. Dixon now appeals.

DISCUSSION

¶17 On appeal, Dixon argues that the officers' search was not authorized by the community caretaker exception as it existed at the time and the officers' reliance on it was therefore not objectively reasonable. Dixon additionally argues that the officers' warrantless search of Dixon's residence was not justified under the exigent circumstances exception.

¶18 The State responds that the trial court properly denied Dixon's suppression motion because the officers' entry and sweep of the residence was supported under the emergency aid doctrine. Alternatively, the State contends that the search satisfied the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement under then-controlling Wisconsin precedent, which the officers relied on in good faith.

¶19 We agree with the State that entry into Dixon's residence was justified under the emergency aid doctrine.^[7] Accordingly because this issue is dispositive, we do not address the community caretaker exception or the exigent circumstances exception. See State v. Blalock...