COA holds officers had reasonable suspicion to justify Act 79 search of vehicle
State v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood, 2023AP1763-CR, 4/28/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Spottswood appeals the circuit court’s denial of his suppression motion after having entered a plea to receiving or concealing stolen property. On appeal, he again challenges the warrantless search of his vehicle, contending that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit an offense sufficient to justify the search under 2013 Wis. Act 79 and WIS. STAT. § 973.09(1d).
The circuit court held a suppression hearing on Spottswood’s motion. Deputies testified that they made contact with Spottswood when he was in his car, stopped at a park and ride in an unlit, restricted area. (¶3). To justify an Act 79 search, law enforcement must have (1) knowledge of an individual’s probation status; and (2) reasonable suspicion that the individual was committing, was about to commit, or had committed a crime or a violation of a condition of probation. State v. Anderson, 2019 WI 97, ¶23, 389 Wis. 2d 106, 935 N.W.2d 285. (¶12).
Spottswood challenges the search on the basis of reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. He does not challenge the circuit court’s factual findings. Upon those findings, COA concludes that, law enforcement had reasonable suspicion that Spottswood was committing, was about to commit, or had committed a crime when they searched his car. Specifically, those findings were: (1) Spottswood’s presence in a dark area where he was “not supposed to be”; (2) Spottswood’s presence near an area “known for drug uses, thefts, et cetera”; (3) his “prior convictions”; (4) the fact “he was on probation”; and (5) Spottswood’s “somewhat confusing” “explanation why he was there” when the deputies first made contact with him. (¶16, ¶¶17-20). COA rejects Spottswood’s challenges to the specific factors on the basis that they are the result of a “divide-and-conquer analysis” and addresses each individually (¶¶21-24). Thus, the court affirms the judgment.