On Point blog, page 1 of 3
In decision recommended for publication, COA holds that investigating criminal record of a passenger is part of traffic stop “mission”
State v. Erik Howard Pantle, 2025AP2003-CR, 10/14/26, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In a decision recommended for publication, COA reiterates that a dog sniff is not a search and that police do not unreasonably prolong a traffic stop by running a record check on the passengers in the car.
COA affirms denial of motion to suppress search of individual based on K9’s alert to driver’s car door
State v. Alan Joseph Lecher, 2026AP90-CR, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s denial of Lecher’s motion to suppress law enforcement’s discovery of alprazolam tablets after a warrantless search, concluding that probable cause existed to search Lecher’s person.
An update: Big Defense Win: COA rejects state’s attempts to apply canine “instinct exception”
State v. Ashley Jean Campbell, 2020AP1813, 3/5/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity
As a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that regardless of whether the “instinct exception” exists, “the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle.” Op., ¶5. More specifically, the court concludes that the canine “did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door.” As a result, the court reverses Campbell’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions to grant her motion to suppress.
Big Defense Win: COA rejects state’s attempts to apply canine “instinct exception”
State v. Ashley Jean Campbell, 2020AP1813, 1/23/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity
As a matter of first impression in Wisconsin, the court of appeals holds that regardless of whether the “instinct exception” exists, “the exception does not apply under the facts in this case to excuse the State’s obligation to obtain a warrant prior to searching Campbell’s vehicle.” Op., ¶5. More specifically, the court concludes that the canine “did not instinctively enter Campbell’s vehicle because the officer had full control of the canine and implicitly encouraged it to enter through the driver’s side door.” As a result, the court reverses Campbell’s judgment of conviction and remands with directions to grant her motion to suppress.
Defense win! Cop didn’t have reasonable suspicion to keep detaining driver who didn’t smell like weed
State v. Noah D. Hartwig, 2022AP1802, 3/30/23, District 4; (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
On an early evening in January, an officer noticed an unoccupied car parked in the lot of a public boat launch. She observed a purse in the vehicle and contacted dispatch to see if she could find out anything about the car; she said he was concerned that its erstwhile operator might need some assistance on the cold and icy night. While the officer was waiting in her squad for dispatch to respond, Hartwig arrived in the parking lot driving his Jeep. A female passenger got out of the jeep and into the mysterious car. The officer turned on her emergency lights and approached the vehicles.
Defense win! Trial counsel ineffective for omitting winning argument from suppression motion
State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective.
COA: Consent to search apartment voluntary and attenuated from dog sniff
State v. Anthony S. Taylor, 2017AP587-CR, 12/21/17, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police responded to a 911 call from S.M., Taylor’s girlfriend. She had been in a fight with another woman in the apartment building they all lived in. The other woman told the cops that she had gone with Taylor to pick up marijuana that day, that he was storing it in the apartment he shared with S.M., and that he may also have had a firearm. An officer testified he also knew Taylor had recently been the victim of a robbery and was a felon.
Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies to pre-Rodriquez dog sniff
State v. James R. Stib, 2017AP3-CR, District 2, 11/15/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Stib argues his traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged to conduct a dog sniff under Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). Assuming Stib is correct, suppression of the evidence seized after the dog alerted is inappropriate under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the dog sniff was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-existing precedent, namely, State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748.
A longer prolonged stop/dog sniff, but a different result
State v. Troy Paulson, 2015AP456-CR, 8/31/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion, not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is the second dog sniff case from District 2 in less than a week. See our post on State v. Downer Jossi here, which recognized that SCOTUS’s Rodriguez v. United States overruled SCOW’s State v.
Court of appeals clarifies test for prolonging traffic stop to conduct dog sniff
State v. Katherine J. Downer Jossi, 2016AP618-CR, 8/24/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This court of appeals decision acknowledges what On Point predicted here when SCOTUS issued Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). That is, Rodriguez, which held that prolonging a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction, effectively overruled State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶32, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748, which allowed for a reasonable delay based on the totality of the circumstances (a.k.a. the “incremental intrusion” test).