On Point: D. Search incident to arrest

David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132

Question presented:

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 App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

United States v. Brima Wurie,

State v. Kari L. Schiewe, 2012AP2767-CR, District 4, 10/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying well-established principles the court of appeals holds that despite the lack of field sobriety tests or other additional investigatory steps there was probable cause to arrest Schiewe for OWI based on information from witnesses and the officer’s own observations of Schiewe at her home. (¶¶14-19). Further, the subsequent blood draw from Schiewe was not tainted by the fact that the police arrested Schiewe in her garage,

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue  (composed by the State’s petition for review)

In determining the legality of a vehicle stop under the Fourth Amendment, did the court of appeals properly conclude that a tail lamp that is sixty-six percent functional is in “good working order” as required under Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1) and thus cannot serve as a basis for an officer’s probable cause to stop the vehicle?

State v. Lewis Allen Stokes, 2012AP2621-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Probable cause to arrest for OWI was established based on: police observations of Stokes speeding and weaving in and out of traffic without signaling at 11:00 p.m.; Stokes’s slurred speech and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath; and Stokes’s argumentative and combative attitude toward the police. (¶¶4-5, 10).

State v. George R. Ferrell, Appeal No. 2012AP2602, 9/26/13, (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A state trooper does not need evidence such as odors, admissions or containers to have probable cause to arrest for OWI.  These facts will do the trick:

 ¶12 . . . [T]he State Patrol received several reports that Ferrell was driving erratically and dangerously.  Thiede observed that Ferrell was speeding and watched Ferrell swerve within his lane. 

Winnebago County v. Brady E. Bauman, 2013AP1075, District 2, 9/18/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

After encountering a deputy in a parking lot, Bauman stated he had been drinking, had driven a half-hour before, and had pulled into the parking lot because he felt impaired. The deputy asked,  “Are you telling me that you are impaired and you were driving in an impaired state?” Bauman answered “yes.” The deputy had probable cause to arrest Bauman:

¶4        …. 

Marathon County v. Eric G. Fischer, 2013AP760, District 3, 9/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police lacked probable cause to arrest Fischer because a “tip” from an ER nurse that Fischer’s BAC was “0.15 percent” did not provide a reliable basis to conclude Fischer was operating while intoxicated.

Fischer was the operator of a motorcycle that crashed. (¶2). Police collected scant information at the scene before Fischer was taken to the hospital.

State v. Scott E. Bartelt, 2013AP110-CR, District 2, 8/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

¶1       …. During his investigation of a bar fight, a village of Butler police officer came to the conclusion that Bartelt should not drive home and offered to give him a ride. Bartelt declined the ride, told the officer he would walk home, and walked away. Not twenty minutes later,

State v. Constance Ilene Osborne, 2012AP2540-CR, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The results of a blood draw done by an EMT at the jail after Osborne was arrested for OWI were admissible because the method and manner of the blood draw were reasonable and the EMT was acting under the direction of a physician, as required by § 343.305(5)(b).

Village of Muscoda v. Samuel R. Anderson, 2012AP2216, District 4, 5/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had probable cause to administer a PBT where: the officer noticed an odor of intoxicants emanating from Anderson or his vehicle; Anderson had bloodshot eyes and slightly slurred speech and admitted he had consumed five drinks over the course of the night; and Anderson’s performance on the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests suggested he might be intoxicated.