On Point blog, page 106 of 142
State v. John D. Tischer, Sr., 2009AP992-CR, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – Anonymous Tip Insufficient
Anonymous tip “from an unknown informant calling from an unknown location” that driver in restaurant parking lot pouring out beer insufficiently reliable to support subsequent stop, where no traffic violations or erratic driving observed.
Seizure of Person: Some Restraint Necessary; Reasonable Suspicion: Stop of Car: No Front Plate – “Frisk” of Car
State v. Leneral Louis Williams, 2010 WI App 39; for Williams: Richard L. Zaffiro; Resp Br.; Reply Br.
Seizure – Some Restraint Necessary
¶16 The Fourth Amendment is not implicated until there has been a seizure. The Court in Terry described a seizure as “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his [or her] freedom to walk away.” Id.
State v. Sameeh J. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5, reconsideration denied
court of appeals decision; for Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Reasonable Suspicion for Detention and “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
Although, “under the collective knowledge doctrine, an investigating officer with knowledge of facts amounting to reasonable suspicion may direct a second officer without such knowledge to stop and detain a suspect,” the state must prove those underlying facts. “Proof is not supplied by the mere testimony of one officer that he relied on the unspecified knowledge of another officer,” ¶¶12-13.
State v. Phillip Brian Conaway / Craig Griffin, 2010 WI App 7
court of appeals decision; for Conaway: Philip J. Brehm; for Griffin: Michael S. Murphy
Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop, Excessive Window Tint, Generally
¶3 The window tint regulation at issue here is easily summarized. Rear window tinting is permitted only if the window allows at least 35% of light to pass through, except that the limitation does not apply to tinting done during the original manufacture of a vehicle.
State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179
court of appeals decision; for Phillips: Michael J. Backes; case activity
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
¶8 There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.” State v.
State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09
Warrantless entry of residence; protective sweep
Click here for court of appeals decision
Defense counsel: Robert E. Haney
Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence is supported when the State demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances, ¶7. Exigent circumstances include: (1) hot pursuit of suspect; (2) threat to someone’s safety; (3) risk of evidence destruction; and (4) likelihood suspect will flee, ¶9.
Analysis: The court goes on to collapse the 2nd and 3rd categories of exigencies,
Warrants – Overbreadth – John Doe Subpoena for Computer Records
Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, on reconsideration 2004 WI 149
Issue/Holding:
¶34. When we review a John Doe subpoena, a foundational issue may be constitutional in nature. For example, does the issuance of a subpoena in a John Doe proceeding, the sole purpose of such proceeding being to investigate alleged criminal activity, have the potential to affect Fourth Amendment rights?
Warrantless Entry of Residence – Exigency – Effectuate Misdemeanor Arrest
State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
Issue/Holding: Support for warrantless entry of a residence to effectuate an arrest may be found where the offense is jailable, even if a misdemeanor; State v. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152 overruled:
¶27 Our review of the reasoning of Mikkelson, as compared with that of Welsh and Santana,
Arrest – Probable Cause – Specific Examples: Traffic Violation – Deviating from Center Line, § 346.05
State v. Michael L. Popke, 2009 WI 37, reversing unpublished opinion
For Popke: John Miller Carroll, Aaron W. Schenk
Issue/Holding: Police had probable cause to believe Popke violated § 346.05, driving on right-side of highway:
¶16 In this case, the officer testified that he was sitting at a stop sign when the defendant turned left onto the road directly ahead of where the officer was sitting.
Arrest – Probable Cause – OWI
State v. Mitchell A. Lange, 2009 WI 49, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lange: Steven M. Cohen
Issue/Holding: Probable cause to arrest for OWI was based on the following factors:
¶24 First, the driving that Officer Hoffman and Officer Penly witnessed is relevant. The driving was not merely erratic and unlawful; it was the sort of wildly dangerous driving that suggests the absence of a sober decision maker behind the wheel.