On Point blog, page 13 of 24
Police had probable cause to ask for PBT
Village of Grafton v. Carl J. Schlegel, 2013AP2521, District 2, 5/7/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had probable cause to ask Schlegel to submit to a preliminary breath test under § 343.303 even though he wasn’t asked to perform field sobriety tests first, and the result of the PBT, along with the rest of the facts, gave police probable cause to arrest Schlegel for OWI.
Stop converted to arrest where police moved OWI suspect 10 miles to hospital before performing sobriety tests
State v. Dean M. Blatterman, 2013AP2107-CR, District 4, 4/24/14 (one-judge; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/24/14, reversed, 2015 WI 46; case activity
You don’t see this very often. The court of appeals just reversed a circuit court decision denying a motion to suppress evidence of intoxication. The police performed field sobriety and blood tests after moving the suspect out of the general vicinity of the stop. This converted the stop into an arrest for which there was no probable cause.
Probable cause for OWI arrest found; conviction upheld
City of Oshkosh v. Jonathan D. Berger, 2013AP2804, District 2, 4/23/14 (one-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the settled test for deciding whether the police had probable cause to arrest for OWI, the court of appeals examined the facts and circumstances of this case and found probable cause.
Police had probable cause to arrest for eluding and OWI
State v. Marcus Norfleet, 2013AP2294-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Police had probable cause to arrest Norfleet for both eluding and operating while intoxicated under the totality of the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of arrest.
After an officer tried to stop a speeding car at around 1:00 a.m., the car accelerated,
Taking defendant from site of stop to nearby police station didn’t turn stop into an arrest
State v. Michael J. Adrian, Jr., 2013AP1890-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Transporting Adrian from the site his vehicle was stopped to the nearest police station for the purpose of performing field sobriety tests did not convert a lawful Terry detention into an illegal custodial arrest.
A person temporarily detained under Terry may be moved “in the general vicinity of the stop without converting what would otherwise be a temporary seizure into an arrest.” State v.
Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule precludes suppression of results of warrantless blood draw that was unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely
State v. William A. Reese, 2014 WI App 27; case activity
The results of a driver’s blood test should not be suppressed even if they were obtained without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances in violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), because the arresting officer acted in good faith reliance on established Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent at the time the blood draw was conducted.
Totality of circumstances supported stop, arrest for robbery
State v. Lamont C., 2013AP1687, District 1, 2/11/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
¶14 We conclude under the facts in this case that [Officer] Hoffman did have reasonable suspicion … to stop … Lamont C. Hoffman, relying on information provided to him by a robbery victim, located Lamont C. within minutes of the robbery. In the limited time Hoffman was able to speak with the victim,
Reading old implied consent form didn’t taint admissibility of blood test results
State v. Lawrence A. Levasseur, Jr., 2013AP2369-CR, District 4, 2/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The arresting officer used an implied consent form that pre-dated the 2009 amendments to § 343.305, so it omitted language about accidents involving death or serious injury–language that did not apply to Levasseur’s situation. The use of the outdated form didn’t strip the resulting blood test result of its statutory presumption of admissibility and accuracy,
Boater in canal lock wasn’t seized when officer on the lock wall engaged him in conversation
State v. Javier Teniente, 2013AP799-CR, District 4, 1/30/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Teniente was on his boat in the chamber of Madison’s Tenney Locks waiting for the water to rise. Piqued by Teniente’s boisterous behavior, an officer standing on the wall of the lock engaged Teniente in conversation. (¶¶3-4, 15). This interaction wasn’t a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes;
U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether warrantless search of cell phone incident to arrest violates Fourth Amendment
David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132
Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Lower court opinion: People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished)
United States v. Brima Wurie,