State v. Jerry Jamar Brown

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
August 26, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and
RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2024AP1142-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2019CF5064

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

JERRY JAMAR BROWN,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
JOHN A. FRANKE, Reserve Judge. Affirmed.

Before White, C.J., Colón, P.J., and Geenen, J.

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).
No. 2024AP1142-CR

¶1 PER CURIAM. Jerry Jamar Brown appeals from a judgment
convicting him of two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Brown
argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence
obtained pursuant to a warrant to search his home. He asserts that the affidavit in
support of the search warrant failed to establish probable cause that contraband
would be found. Upon review, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On November 15, 2019, the State charged Brown with two counts of
being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of possession of
methamphetamine as a second or subsequent offense. According to the criminal
complaint, Milwaukee police executed a search warrant at Brown’s residence and
found a handgun, a rifle, and pills containing methamphetamine.

¶3 Brown moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the affidavit
in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. Brown
argued that the affidavit relied almost entirely on information obtained from a
confidential informant whose reliability had not been verified. The State opposed
the motion, arguing that the attesting officer confirmed that the
informant: successfully conducted multiple controlled buys; aided in the arrest of at
least four individuals; aided in the recovery of illegal firearms and narcotics;
positively identified Brown through a booking photograph; knew Brown’s
residence; personally observed Brown conduct drug transactions; and made
multiple statements against the informant’s own penal interest. Alternatively, the
State argued that if the warrant to search Brown’s residence was not supported by
probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule precluded
suppression of the evidence.

2
No. 2024AP1142-CR

¶4 The circuit court initially granted Brown’s motion, finding that the
confidential informant’s information was insufficiently corroborated and contained
insufficient facts to confirm the informant’s reliability. The circuit court also
rejected the State’s argument as to the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

¶5 The State moved the circuit court to reconsider its decision, reiterating
its prior arguments as to the confidential informant’s reliability, and, alternatively,
requesting an evidentiary hearing to show that police conducted an investigation
warranting application of the good-faith exception. The court ultimately granted
the State’s reconsideration motion, stating that after reviewing additional case law
and rereading the attesting officer’s affidavit, it agreed that the warrant provided
sufficient probable cause to search Brown’s residence. Specifically, the court found
that the affidavit established that the informant made statements against his own
penal interest and engaged in controlled buys that led to multiple arrests, the
recovery of firearms and drugs, and the procurement of additional search warrants.
The court admitted “that [it] was a mistake … not to find there was a sufficient basis
to find that informant reliable.”

¶6 Brown ultimately pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in
possession of a firearm. The circuit court sentenced Brown to three years of initial
confinement and three years of extended supervision on each count, to run
concurrently. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

¶7 On appeal, Brown argues that the circuit court erred when it granted
the State’s reconsideration motion and ultimately denied his motion to suppress. He
reiterates that the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause to
search his residence. We disagree.

3
No. 2024AP1142-CR

¶8 In reviewing a challenge to a search warrant, we give deference to the
decision to issue the warrant. State v. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146, ¶8, 303 Wis. 2d
438, 736 N.W.2d 189. Our review is limited to the record as it existed before the
reviewing official at the time the warrant was issued. Id. The inquiry before us is
whether the reviewing official “was ‘apprised of sufficient facts to excite an honest
belief in a reasonable mind that the objects sought are linked with the commission
of a crime, and that they will be found in the place to be searched.’” Id. (citation
omitted). “We will uphold the decision to issue the warrant unless the facts in the
supporting affidavit ‘were clearly insufficient to support a finding of probable
cause.’ In reviewing a probable cause assessment, we examine the totality of the
circumstances.” State v. Casarez, 2008 WI App 166, ¶10, 314 Wis. 2d 661, 762
N.W.2d 385 (citation omitted).

¶9 In examining whether probable cause existed, this court first considers
the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying the hearsay
information. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). Here, these concerns are
satisfied. The affidavit in support of the warrant stated that the confidential
informant had provided the attesting officer with truthful and accurate information
in the past. The informant’s knowledge was also based on first-hand observations
and personal knowledge about Brown. Specifically, the affidavit established that
the informant previously conducted four controlled buys, leading to the arrest of
multiple individuals and the seizure of drugs and illegal firearms. The affidavit also
asserted that the informant had a good “track record,” was personally familiar with
Brown, and recognized Brown’s residence. The affidavit also stated that the
informant personally observed Brown conduct three crack cocaine transactions at
Brown’s residence over a 14-day period. In short, the affidavit established the
informant’s reliability. Based on the information provided in the affidavit, the judge

4
No. 2024AP1142-CR

who issued the warrant could reasonably infer that Brown was engaged in criminal
activity.

¶10 Because we conclude that the search warrant at issue did not lack
probable cause, we need not reach the question of whether the good-faith exception
to the exclusionary rule applies in this case. See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688,
703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989) (stating that “cases should be decided on the
narrowest possible ground”).

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

5