COA: Community caretaking function does not justify seizing a witness to a traffic accident.
State v. William A. Anderson, 2025AP796, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because law enforcement’s community caretaker function did not justify seizing a possible witness to a motorcycle accident.
A Waukesha County deputy sheriff witnessed a motorcycle accident on a highway in Delafield. While he was on foot investigating the scene, the deputy flashed his flashlight at two passing motorcycles because he wanted them to stop so he could inquire whether they knew the driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident and if they witnessed the motorcyclist’s reckless driving. When the two passing motorcyclists did not stop, the deputy alerted another deputy to stop them to determine if they were “involved in any way with the suspect motorcycle which crashed.” (¶ 2). William Anderson drove one of the motorcycles that was stopped, which resulted in his arrest for operating while intoxicated as a third offense. (¶ 2). Anderson sought to suppress the fruits of his seizure because it was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion, which was denied by the circuit court because it found the deputy exercised a bona fide community caretaking function. (¶ 1).
On appeal, the State conceded Anderson was seized and that his seizure was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The State argued, however, that law enforcement’s community caretaker function justified stopping Anderson.
The COA disagreed because the State did not cite any authority “to support the notion that a bona fide community caretaker function includes a stop for the purpose of speaking to a witness to a crime and/or a traffic accident.” (¶ 8). The COA determined the community caretaker function does not justify stopping a witness “who is not in distress or otherwise in need of protection or assistance.” (¶ 9). Further, Anderson was stopped to detect, investigate, or acquire evidence of a crime by the crash victim, not Anderson, which is beyond the scope of the community caretaker function. (¶ 10).
The COA rejected the State’s argument that law enforcement needed to determine the identity of the crash victim to assist him because there was no evidence the victim’s identity was unavailable or that Anderson or the other motorcyclist knew the driver’s identity, “much less any indication that they were needed to provide medical assistance or to address a medical emergency.” (¶ 11).