On Point blog, page 24 of 25
Arrest — Probable Cause — Citizen-Informant — Connection Between Defendant and Deceased
State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Stephen G. Bauer
Holding: Various informants were sufficiently reliable to support probable cause: though they weren’t expressly identified as citizen informants, they wree not suspects but, rather, “were ordinary persons who answered questions and provided information in response to a police investigation of a crime.” ¶15. (Note: though not mentioned by the court,
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” of Residence
State v. Antonion Blanco, Nora M. Al-Shammari, 2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis.2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512
For Blanco: Michael P. Jakus
Issue: Whether the police were justified, under “protective sweep” rationale, to search a crawl space in a bathroom ceiling.
Holding: Though narrowly confined to cursory inspection of places where a person might be hiding following an arrest inside of a residence, the protective-sweep doctrine in this case justified search of a crawl space bolted in place by four screws.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Automobile Passenger’s Property Incident to Arrest of Driver
State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson
Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.
Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Warrantless Blood Test
State v. John C. Thorstad, 2000 WI App 199, 238 Wis. 2d 666, 618 N.W.2d 240
For Thorstad: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue: Whether the warrantless blood draw complied with State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993).
Holding: The four-part Bohling test — lawful arrest; reasonable suspicion that draw will show intoxication; method of drawing blood reasonable; no reasonable objection by arrestee to blood draw —
Arrest — Warrant, Based on Criminal Complaint — Standard of Review
State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: What is the standard of review for an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint?
Holding: Although review of probable cause to support a complaint is independent, review of probable cause to support an arrest warrant based on a complaint is greatly deferential (same as review of a search warrant).
Arrest — Authority of Sheriff to Arrest in Municipality
State v. Rodney G. Zivcic, 229 Wis.2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Zivcic: John J. Carter
Issue/Holding: A sheriff’s deputy has authority to arrest in a city located in the county.
Easy enough. Plus, there’s significant authority allowing a an officer to peform an out-of-jurisdiction arrest under a “citizen’s arrest” rationale: see State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47 (discussion of point,
Arrest – Probable Cause – Predicated on Mistake of Law
State v. Michael M. Longcore (I), 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed by equally divided vote, 2000 WI 23, 233 Wis. 2d 278, 607 N.W.2d 620
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue/Holding: An officer stopped Longcore’s car because his back window had been replaced with a plastic covering. The trial court ruled that this was a permissible temporary stop but the court of appeals holds that the officer wasn’t conducting a temporary,
Arrest – Probable Cause – “Unmistakable” Drug Odor, Single-Occupant Automobile
State v. Timothy M. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (1999), reversing, 218 Wis.2d 508, 582 N.W.2d 37 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Secrist: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue/Holding:
The issue presented to the court is whether the odor of a controlled substance may provide probable cause to arrest,
Arrest — Probable Cause — Drug Odor, Multiple Possible Sources, Emanating from Home
State v. Michael Wilson, 229 Wis.2d 256, 600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wilson: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue/Holding:
Ison lacked probable cause to arrest Wilson when he refused to allow Wilson to use the bathroom because at that time, Ison could not identify Wilson as the source of the marijuana odor emanating from the basement. The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that “the odor of a controlled substance provides probable cause to arrest when the odor is unmistakable and may be linked to a specific person or persons because of the circumstances in which the odor is discovered or because other evidence links the odor to the person or persons.”State v.
Arrest — Probable Cause — Drug Odor: “raw” marijuana — Search of Passenger.
State v. Mata, 230 Wis.2d 567, 602 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Mata: Daniel P. Murray.
Issue: Whether the police had probable cause to search the passenger of a stopped car, based on the odor of “raw” marijuana.
Holding: The odor of marijuana was sufficiently linked to the passenger to justify the search.
The police stopped a car because it didn’t have a front plate.