On Point: D. Search incident to arrest

State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)

This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:

¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.

State v. Timothy Edward Curtis, 2018AP920-CR, 4/2/19, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Curtis with a 2nd offense OWI. He moved to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest on the grounds that the officer didn’t have probable cause for the arrest in the first place. He lost in the circuit court and in the court of appeals.

State v. James R. Mueller, 2018AP44-CR, 2/12/19, District 3 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Mueller conceded that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop him. He argued that the officer extended the stop based on a “hunch” and that his FSTs results did not provide probable cause for arrest or sufficient evidence to convict him because they test for impairment by alcohol, not prescription meds.

State v. Michael R. Pace, 2018AP1428, District 2, 1/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The officer who arrested Pace for OWI had probable cause to do so.

State v. Jordan Bennett Micklevitz, 2018AP637-CR, District 1, 1/23/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Micklevitz’s challenges to the search of his apartment.

Gerald Mitchell v. Wisconsin, USSC No. 18-6210, certiorari granted 1/11/19

Question presented:

Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

State v. Eric R. Burrows, 2018AP770-CR, District 2, 12/26/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Burrows sent threatening and harassing letters to E.W., arranged inflammatory and derogatory voicemail messages on her phone, and delivered a baby python to her apartment. He argues the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for stalking and to search his car and other property. The court of appeals disagrees.

Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity 

A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.

State v. Philip J. Hawley, 2015AP1113, District 4, 11/21/18; case activity (including briefs)

Our supreme court has, three times, set out to decide whether the  implied-consent statute supplies “consent” in a Fourth Amendment sense, such that it constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. Three times, it has failed to reach a binding majority on the question–or has it? The court of appeals, in this certification, suggests perhaps the supreme court has the answer already, depending how you count the votes.

State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause.