On Point blog, page 102 of 141
County of Milwaukee v. Caleb L. Manske, 2009AP1779, District I, 6/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion
¶16 Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.
State v. Michael J. Lonergan, No. 2009AP3001-CR, District III, 5/25/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lonergan: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.
Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Stop
Stop supported by reasonable suspicion, where vehicle “‘deviated constantly’ from a direct line of travel” and “made several abrupt course corrections,” albeit within its own lane. United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) and United States v.
State v. Cody R. Dewitt, 2009AP2393-CR, District IV, 5/20/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Dewitt: Thomas E. Hayes; BiC; Resp.
Detention for 90 Minutes not Unreasonable
Stop of motorist Dewitt by officer who, because he was off-duty, could not under departmental rules himself perform arrest, wasn’t unnecessarily prolonged by 90 minute delay until on-duty officer could show up.
¶15 Dewitt has presented no evidence to show that Officer Geffert,
State v. Dale W. Jenkins, 2009AP2918-CR, District II, 5/19/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Jenkins: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing
Jenkins’ motion papers were inadequate and the circuit court would have been correct in denying him an evidentiary hearing. All Jenkins filed was a one-page motion with the assertion the officers had looked inside his windows;
State v. Michael S. Miske, 2009AP2841-CR, District II, 5/19/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Miske: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.
Terry Stop – Voluntary Encounter
A voluntary encounter, rather than Terry stop, occurred where Miske came to a stop when approaching two squads flanking “an unlit back country road” at 1:00 a.m.:
¶12 When Miske and his partner stopped, they were on a narrow road,
Third-Party Consent: Seize and Search Computer
State v. David D. Ramage, 2010 WI App 77; for Ramage: Jevin J. Mulrooney; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Co-tenant’s permissive use of Ramage’s computers conferred on her authority to consent to warrantless police removal of computer and search of their contents. Contrary authority, People v. Blair, 748 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001); State v. Lacey,
Adrian T. Johnson v. U.S., 7th Cir No. 08-1777, 5/14/10
Permissive Driver, Standing to Challenge Car Search
It is well-established that a driver of a borrowed vehicle may establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle even though that driver is not the owner of the vehicle. … Courts have repeatedly recognized the right of a driver to assert a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches of a vehicle where the driver is operating that vehicle with the permission of the owner.
State v. Michael D. Sporle, 2009AP2737-CR, District IV, 4/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sporle: Robert J. Jackson; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Implied Consent Procedure, § 343.305(2)
¶12 The officer complied with her obligations to provide the “Informing the Accused” information and to make an alternative test available. The officer informed Sporle that, if he took the requested test, he could have an alternative test free of charge,
State v. Joseph R. Davison, 2009AP3091-CR, District II, 4/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davison: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable Suspicion – OWI
Reasonable suspicion found to administer field sobriety tests, where Davison admitted drinking 4 or 5 beers, had alcohol on his breath, was in close proximity to the bar where he had been drinking, and it was bar closing time.
“Bar closing time”
State v. Tommy K. Miller, 2009AP2056-CR, District II, 4/28/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Dudley A. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Community Caretaker
Miller caught the attention of the police by driving very slowly, early in the morning, and pulling into the parking lot of a closed business. But he soon drove off, and neither committed any traffic violations nor engaged in suspicious behavior; his ensuing stop wasn’t supportable under a community caretaker rationale:
¶16 We conclude that Harper’s conduct was not a bona fide community caretaker activity because it did not meet the standard.