On Point: 4. Probable cause to arrest

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.

State v. J.P., 2017AP1905, District 1, 9/5/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

J.P. was adjudicated delinquent for calling in two bomb scares to his high school. The court of appeals rejects his claims that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and unlawfully searched his phone and that his confession was involuntary. However, the court agrees with J.P. that part of the restitution order is invalid.

State v. Jeffrey A. Jacobi, 2017AP1816, 5/30/18, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Based on facts specific to this case, the court of appeals held that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe Jacobi was intoxicated when he bumped into a car while driving his motorcycle. It also wagged its finger at appellate counsel for carelessness in compiling the record and for misrepresenting the record. It also noted his failure to file a reply brief.

State v. Robert L. Bentz, 2017AP1436-CR, 3/21/18, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Bentz with OWI 3rd and PAC 3rd. Bentz moved to suppress evidence for lack of reasonable suspicion to detain and lack of probable cause to arrest. The circuit court denied his motion. The appeal concerned the point at which the law enforcement officer seized Bentz and the evidence supporting reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

State v. Dustin R. Willette, 2017AP888, District 3, 2/6/18 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police dispatcher informed officer Hughes that a caller saw a man drive into gas station, exit his car, and walk away. Then another officer reported seeing a similarly-dressed man walking down the a road about a mile away. That man was Willette. Officer Hughes picked him up, drove him back to the car at the gas station, performed FSTs, arrested him for OWI, and asked him to submit to a blood test. Willette did not say  “yes” or “no.” He said “I want to speak to a lawyer.” Here’s why the circuit court found probable cause to arrest and improper refusal to submit to a blood test.

District of Columbia v. Wesby, USSC No. 15-1485, 2017 WL 491521 (January 22, 2018), reversing Wesby v. District of Columbia, 765 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

The probable-cause determination in this case is quite fact-specific, and the qualified immunity issue is of little interest to criminal practitioners. Perhaps more interesting is Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, which signals she is open to reconsidering whether the existence of probable cause necessarily validates an arrest.

State v. Terry Sanders, 2017AP636-CR, District 3, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sanders challenges his arrest for OWI, saying the officer lacked probable cause based on a “mixed bag” of facts that included inconclusive field sobriety tests and things an officer “would likely see [being done] by day by sober folks.” (¶9). The court of appeals does not agree.

State v. Travis J. Rose, 2018 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)

A police officer investigating reports of Rose’s erratic driving concluded Rose was not intoxicated by alcohol, but continued to detain him and, after securing consent, searched Rose’s car, where he found narcotics. The court of appeals holds the officer’s continued detention of Rose, and thus the consent to search the car, were lawful because the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation.

State v. Sarah A. Schmidt, 2017AP724-CR, District 2, 10/11/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

For operating while intoxicated, no less—even though there was scant evidence of impaired driving and the driver exhibited no slurred speech and apparently normal balance and motor coordination.

State v. Denton Ricardo Ewers, 2016AP1671-CR, 8/22/2017, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An employee at Family Dollar called the police to report that man who appeared “dazed and confused” and whose breath smelled of intoxicants had come into the store before leaving in a gold Ford Focus and heading west. An officer looked for the Focus but could not find it. Two hours later, the employee called back to say the same man, still “dazed and confused,” had once again been in the store, and once again had departed to the west in his gold Ford Focus. This time, the officer located the car and stopped it. The driver, Ewers, seemed intoxicated, which he eventually proved to be.