A contentious legal battle unfolds as two investigators face allegations of violating constitutional rights during a marijuana investigation. On January 13, 2026, the Court of Appeals in Wisconsin received an appeal from Riley Kummet and Zack Dieckman against a nonfinal order denying their motion for summary judgment. The case, originally filed by Stephan Lane in Rusk County Circuit Court under Judge Benjamin J. Lane, involves claims of unlawful search and seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The controversy dates back to January 2021 when Kummet and Dieckman, then investigators with the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office, conducted a “knock and talk” at Lane’s residence on Fritz Avenue in Ladysmith, Wisconsin. This investigative technique led them to enter the curtilage of Lane’s home without a warrant—a move that later became central to Lane’s lawsuit. During this encounter, Kummet claimed to have smelled marijuana and observed what appeared to be harvested marijuana plants inside the house. These observations were used to obtain a search warrant, leading to Lane’s arrest on multiple drug-related charges.
Lane contested the legality of the evidence obtained during this operation, arguing that it resulted from an unlawful entry into his home’s curtilage. The circuit court agreed with Lane’s argument and suppressed the evidence, leading to the dismissal of criminal charges against him. Subsequently, Lane filed a civil lawsuit alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights alongside state law claims for trespass and invasion of privacy.
Kummet and Dieckman sought summary judgment on grounds including qualified immunity—a legal doctrine shielding government officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights known at the time. However, both the circuit court and appellate judges found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Kummet and Dieckman’s actions constituted a permissible “knock and talk” or an unlawful search within protected curtilage.
Lane argues that his northern door was clearly marked as the primary entrance with indicators like a mailbox and house number—facts disputed by affidavits from both parties regarding which entrance appeared most used. These conflicting accounts create significant factual disputes about whether officers had implicit permission to approach via an alternative route through fenced property.
The plaintiffs seek relief under federal civil rights statutes for alleged constitutional violations while also pursuing damages related to trespass claims against Rusk County under respondeat superior liability principles due its employees’ conduct during official duties.
Representing Stephan Lane is Attorney Samuel A. Christensen; meanwhile, details about defense counsel remain unspecified within available documents reviewed thus far but will likely emerge during further proceedings following remand instructions issued today by appellate judges Stark P.J., Hruz J., Gill J., collectively handling Case No:2024AP998 involving Circuit Court Number:2023CV27
Source: 2024AP998_Lane_v_Kummet_Opinion_Wisconsin_Court_of_Appeals.pdf