On Point blog, page 104 of 143
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sporle: Robert J. Jackson; BiC; Resp.; Reply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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davison: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.; Reply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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Dudley A. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply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.
State v. Alan D. Pintar, 2009AP2096-CR, District IV, 4/22/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”
State v. Scott W. Able, 2009AP2777-CR, District II, 4/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Able: Francesco G. Mineo; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable Suspicion, Stop
Police had reasonable suspicion for temporary detention: after business hours, car pulled into parking lot of fitness club that had been subject of recent burglaries.
Conclusion unremarkable save perhaps court’s inexplicable emphasis that event occurred “close to bar closing time,” ¶12.
State v. Gordon J. Schlapper, 2009AP2660-CR, District III
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Schlapper: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Probable Cause Based Search of Car, After Arrest of Passenger
Police had probable cause to search car, after passenger threw marijuana out window; search-incident limitations imposed by Arizona v. Gant therefore inapplicable.
James Thomas Morton, Jr. v. City of Milwaukee, 2009AP001199, District I, 4/6/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Forfeiture
Refusal of request to return seized cash upheld, where Morton was convicted of drug offenses: separate forfeiture action was unnecessary (Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), controlling); trial court forfeiture decision is discretionary, and Morton’s failure to provide transcript of trial court reasoning dooms attack.
State v. Daniel J. Rice, 2009AP1162, District IV, 4/1/2010
court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing
¶6 Regarding the applicability of [State v.] Garner [, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996) to the present case, we find no published cases applying Garner’s modified Nelson test to a pretrial motion to suppress anything other than witness identification evidence.