On Point: 4. Probable cause to arrest

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State v. Daniel Cervantes, 2011AP1858-CR, District 1, 2/12/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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

Bradley K. Darwin, No. 2009AP2608-FT, District IV, 6/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Darwin: Bill Ginsberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶5     Darwin argues that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for OWI. The municipal court made the following findings of fact with respect to probable cause: Darwin signaled a turn, but failed to complete it; he denied drinking;

State v. Michael L. Popke, 2009 WI 37, reversing unpublished opinion
For Popke: John Miller Carroll, Aaron W. Schenk

Issue/Holding: Police had probable cause to believe Popke violated § 346.05, driving on right-side of highway:

¶16      In this case, the officer testified that he was sitting at a stop sign when the defendant turned left onto the road directly ahead of where the officer was sitting.

State v. Mitchell A. Lange, 2009 WI 49, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lange: Steven M. Cohen

Issue/Holding: Probable cause to arrest for OWI was based on the following factors:

¶24      First, the driving that Officer Hoffman and Officer Penly witnessed is relevant. The driving was not merely erratic and unlawful; it was the sort of wildly dangerous driving that suggests the absence of a sober decision maker behind the wheel.

State v. Tanya L. Marten-Hoye, 2008 WI App 19, (AG’s) PFR filed 2/20/08; prior history: Certification, rejected 9/10/07
For Marten-Hoye: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶31      Wisconsin Stat. § 947.01 prohibits “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” Ben-Ami observed Marten-Hoye walking away from Ben-Ami and using profane language in a loud voice.

Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding:

¶36 We conclude that under the circumstances of the present case, the Deputy’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.

State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant had already been removed from the premises following his arrest, a search of his bedroom couldn’t be justified under a search-incident rationale:

¶51      The State contends that Officer Garcia’s second search of the defendant’s bedroom was justified as a search incident to arrest under the Chimel standard because the bedroom was “within [the defendant’s] immediate presence or control when he barricaded himself in the bedroom and was out of the police officers’

State v. Tanya L. Marten-Hoye, 2008 WI App 19, (AG’s) PFR filed 2/20/08; prior history: Certification, rejected 9/10/07
For Marten-Hoye: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the officer handcuffed the defendant and told her she was under arrest for an ordinance violation, but also told her that she would “be released if she continued to be cooperative,” there was no arrest in fact and therefore the fruits of an ensuing search incident to (a non-existent) arrest were suppressible:

¶27      In sum,

State v. Pedro L. Nieves, 2007 WI App 189, PFR filed 7/6/07
For Nieves: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding:

¶9 For purposes of this appeal, the propriety of the initial traffic stop is not challenged. Rather, Nieves argues that he should not have been arrested for his “innocuous seatbelt violation.” He was not. Indeed, Wis. Stat. § 347.48(2m)(gm) expressly forbids an arrest based solely on a seatbelt violation.