On Point blog, page 108 of 143
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State v. Michael L. Popke, 2009 WI 37, reversing unpublished opinion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State v. Mitchell A. Lange, 2009 WI 49, reversing unpublished opinion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.
Community Caretaker – Investigation of Stopped Car with Hazard Lights on
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen
Issue/Holding:
¶37 We conclude that Wagner had an objectively reasonable basis for deciding that a motorist may have been in need of assistance when he stopped behind Kramer’s vehicle. Kramer was parked on the side of a highway after dark with his hazard flashers operating.
Reasonable Suspicion – Basis – OWI – Time of Day, Erratic Driving
State v. Michael L. Popke, 2009 WI 37, reversing unpublished opinion
For Popke: John Miller Carroll, Aaron W. Schenk
Issue / Holding:
¶26 In the case at hand, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Similar to the specific and articulable facts observed by the officer in Post, the officer in this case made the following observations over the course of approximately one block at 1:30 a.m.: The defendant was driving with three-quarters of the vehicle left of the center of the road;
Arrest Warrants – Entry, Defendant’s Residence
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2009 WI App 97
For Robinson: Beth A. Eisendrath
Issue/Holding: Given the trial court finding that Robinson either lived or stayed at the apartment, the police were authorized to enter to effectuate his arrest under auspices of an arrest warrant:
¶16 In Blanco, the police, who had an arrest warrant for Blanco, entered an apartment where they believed Blanco was staying.
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Stalking
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.
Issue/Holding: A search warrant for seizure of the sorts of items Sveum used or kept in connection with a 1996 stalking conviction established probable cause he was keeping such items in 2003:
¶35 The warrant affidavit stated that the affiant was a detective with twenty-two years of experience who had specialized training in stalking crimes.
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Statements of Unnamed, Unwitting Participant in Transaction
State v. Jaime Romero, 2009 WI 32, reversing unpublished opinion
For Romero: Thomas E. Hayes
Issue/Holding: Search warrant affidavit, based in part on incriminatory statements of “unwitting” informant (“Mr. X”), established probable cause:
¶29 In the instant case a confidential informant told a law enforcement officer what someone else had told him. In such a case, the veracity of each person in the chain is relevant.
Search Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶40 Sveum’s particularity argument is that the many items authorized for seizure were so “non-specific” that the warrant was an invalid general warrant. Police were authorized to seize phone bills, journals, calendars, logs, computers and devices related to computers,
WESCL, §§ 968.31(2)(b) and (c) – GPS Device not Covered
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.
Issue/Holding: The Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law excludes from coverage “(a)ny communication from a tracking device,” § 968.27(4)(d); a GPS device is such a “tracking device” and, therefore excluded from WESCL coverage.
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – One-Party Consent Exception, Generally
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09
For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8 The one-party consent exception reads as follows:
(2) It is not unlawful …:….
(b) For a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.