On Point blog, page 463 of 484
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – “Identification Search”
State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶1 … When a person provides oral identification to a police officer conducting a Terry stop and request for identification, may the officer perform a limited search for identifying papers when the information provided is not confirmed by police records?
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the “collective knowledge” doctrine applies when the information in the possession of one police officer is not in fact communicated to another officer.
Holding: ¶17 n. 4:
(I)n order for the collective-information rule to apply, such information must actually be passed to the officer before he or she makes an arrest or conducts a search.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Identified 911 Caller
State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182
For Sisk: Elvis Banks
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself.
Holding:
¶8. Here, because the caller gave what he said was his name, the trial court erred in viewing the call as an anonymous one.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Traffic Offense – Tarrying at Stop Sign
State v. Lawrence J. Fields, 2000 WI App 218, 239 Wis.2d 38, 619 N.W.2d 279
For Fields: Daniel Goggin
Issue: Whether the police stop of a car, merely because it had lingered at a stop sign for a few seconds, was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Holding: To ask the question is to answer it. This was, at least in the cop’s mind, a case of premature evasion.
§ 940.20(1), Battery by Prisoner — Probationer
State v. James T. Fitzgerald, 2000 WI App 55, 233 Wis. 2d 584, 608 N.W.2d 391
For Fitzgerald: Daniel P. Dunn
Issue: Whether a probationer in custody under a probation hold is necessarily a “prisoner” within the battery by prisoner statute, Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1).
Holding: Because a “prisoner” is someone confined as a result of a violation of the law; and because probation rules and conditions have the force of law,
Expectation of Privacy — Abandoned Property
State v. Robert C. Knight, 2000 WI App 16, 232 Wis.2d 305, 606 N.W.2d 291
For Knight: Scott B. Taylor.
Issue: Whether the seizure of files earmarked for destruction by a disbarred attorney violated the fourth amendment.
Holding: The files, which the disbarred attorney had turned over to a third party for destruction, had been abandoned and therefore no search and seizure occurred within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Exigency — Emergency Doctrine — Warrantless Entry to Check on Welfare of Child
State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:
¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,
Exigency — Community Caretaker Entry of Residence, Suicide Prevention — “Protective Sweep”
State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber
Issue/Holding1:
¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.
§ 943.10, Burglary – Sufficiency of Evidence – Fingerprint Evidence
State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support conviction for burglary/theft.
Holding: Evidence that defendant’s fingerprint was found on the “dock station” from which a lap-top was stolen from an office that sold only to other businesses and was not open to the public; and that defendant neither had worked nor had permission to be there sufficed to support the conviction.
§ 943.10(1)(a), Burglary – Entry to Commit Felony (Bail Jumping, § 946.49(1)(b))
State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the commission of felony bail jumping, by entering the complainant’s home in violation of bond conditions, supports burglary-entry of dwelling with intent to commit felony.
Holding: The underlying felony component of burglary must be a crime against persons or property; Semrau’s “core conduct”