On Point: 4. Probable cause to arrest

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶16. To determine if probable cause exists, the court must consider whether “the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable police officer to believe … that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.” 

State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach

Issue: Whether McAttee’s arrest was supported by probable cause.

Holding:

¶11. First, Detective Kuchenreuther was entitled to rely on Officer Smith’s knowledge of the confidential informant. See State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, ¶17 n.4, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210 (arresting officer may rely on collective knowledge of police force conveyed to the officer prior to arrest),

State v. Michael M. Longcore II, 2001 WI App 15, on appeal after remand of State v. Longcore I, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether replacing a vehicle’s glass window with a plastic sheet violates the safety glass statute, § 347.43(1), so as to provide probable cause to arrest.

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,

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,

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,

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.

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.