On Point: D. Search incident to arrest

State v. Michael E. Zinke, 2012AP2087-CR, District 4, 4/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The stop and arrest of Zinke by a police officer well outside his jurisdiction was proper under a mutual aid statute, § 66.0313(2), even though the officer was “miles away” from his jurisdiction and initiated contact with the agency that had jurisdiction.

These are the facts: A Village of Westfield police officer was traveling on a county highway in Marquette County when he observed a vehicle  repeatedly deviating from its designated lane.

State v. Amanda Kratochwill, 2012AP2076-CR, District 4, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police  had probable cause to arrest Kratochwill for OWI where:

• Car was stopped for speeding (¶2);
• Upon  approaching the car the officer noted a strong smell of intoxicants and an open beer in the front passenger cup holder (¶2);
• When told she was speeding,

State v. Daniel Cervantes, 2011AP1858-CR, District 1, 2/12/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The police lacked probable cause to arrest Cervantes when he opened the door of his apartment (¶¶10-16); there were neither exigent circumstances nor community caretaker grounds for the police to enter Cervantes’s apartment following his arrest to do a protective sweep (¶¶14-23); and his subsequent “consent” to search the apartment was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal arrest and entries (¶¶24-30). 

Village of Spring Green v. Michael D. Deignan, 2012AP1303, District 4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects the claim that § 175.40(6), which authorizes an officer to arrest or provide aid or assistance anywhere in the state under written inter-agency agreements, should govern the lawfulness of defendant’s arrest because it is more specific than Wis. Stat. § 175.40(2), which authorizes an officer to arrest while engaging “in fresh pursuit” anywhere in the state:

¶14      ….

State v. Jonathan A. Herr, 2013 WI App 37; case activity

In a case arising from a high-speed chase and subsequent arrest for OWI, the court holds that the use of unreasonable force to arrest the defendant does not require the suppression of evidence that was not a product of, or causally related to, the alleged unreasonable force.

Police saw Herr driving erratically and attempted to stop him.

State v. Edward C. Lefler, 2013 WI App 22; case activity

Probable cause found to search trunk of vehicle for evidence of burglary-related crimes, after an indisputably lawful stop for drunk driving:

¶11      …  “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”  United States v.

Dane County v. Steven D. Koehn, 2012AP1718, District 4, 1/10/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Motion to suppress evidence of intoxication properly denied because arresting officer had probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test. The court of appeals rejects Koehn’s claims that the officer’s failure to testify about the significance of the results of field sobriety tests means those results should have “minimal significance” in determining probable cause to administer the PBT:

¶10      I first conclude that,

State v. Mark A. Sanders, 2013 WI App 4; case activity

Search incident to arrest — area within arrestee’s “immediate control”

Search of bed in room from which defendant emerged just before being arrested upheld under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which permits an arresting officer to search the person arrested and the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control” in order to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime and protect officers’ safety.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Andrew Wheaton, 2012AP173-CR

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI

Presence of the following factors establish reasonable suspicion to stop Wheaton for impaired driving:

¶23      The State points to the following as factors that produced an objectively reasonable suspicion of impaired driving at the time of the stop:  (1) Wheaton was driving at 3:05 a.m.,

State v. Randall Lee Sugden, 2012AP408-CR, District 4, 10/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Arrest in Richland County by a Sauk County deputy sheriff was justified under the fresh pursuit doctrine, § 175.40(2). State v. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, 248 Wis. 2d 724, 638 N.W.2d 82, discussed and applied:

¶12      Applying Haynes to the facts of this case,