On Point blog, page 123 of 142
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop
State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler
Issue/Holding:
¶6. Kennedy had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Viewed in isolation, some of what she observed was lawful behavior. It is lawful for a car to be on the roadway at 1:30 a.m. It is lawful for a car to be stopped at an angle within its lane of travel.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Anonymous Tip
State v. Tabitha A. Sherry, 2004 WI App 207, PFR filed 11/19/04
For Sherry: Craig R. Day
Issue: Whether an anonymous tip – to “Crime Stoppers,” predicting that a particularly described car with a specified license plate would be transporting a large amount of marijuana between neighboring towns – contained sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for a stop of the car.
Holding:
¶6.
Reasonable Suspicion — Stop — Duration — Traffic Offense — Questioning Passenger Following Lawful Stop
State v. Donavan W. Malone, 2004 WI 108, on certification
For Malone: John A. Cabranes
Issue: Whether, during a routine traffic stop, the officer may request passengers to get out of the vehicle and question them on matters reasonably related to the nature of the stop.
Holding: Because lawfulness of the stop of the car in which Malone was riding was undisputed, the applicable framework of analysis is found in State v.
Expectation of Privacy — Garbage
State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/2/04
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶14. The State and Sigarroa propose different tests for determining the constitutionality of a warrantless garbage search… .
…
¶16. Both parties are able to cite case law in support of their competing approaches. However, upon close review of the relevant cases,
Expectation of Privacy – Curtilage – (Attached) Garage
State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg
Issue/Holding: ¶21 n. 5:
The State does not challenge the circuit court’s holding that the garage was part of the curtilage of Leutenegger’s house and subject to the warrant requirement. This implicit concession appears appropriate in this case. Published decisions on this topic consistently hold that an attached garage is part of the curtilage.
Emergency Exception to Warrant Requirement — Officer’s Subjective Intent
State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg
Issue/Holding:
¶12. A warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶28. The government bears the burden of establishing that a warrantless entry into a home occurred pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. See State v.
Exigency: “Safety Exception”
State v. Robert A. Ragsdale, 2004 WI App 178, PFR filed 8/5/04For Ragsdale: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding:
¶14. Moreover, the questioning of the boy here presents a situation analogous to the safety exceptions set forth in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 654-60 (1984), and its progeny. Quarles set forth a public safety exception to the requirement for Mirandawarnings.
Arrest – Probable Cause – Predicated on Officer’s Mistaken View of Law
State v. Christopher M. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, PFR filed 12/17/04
For Repenshek: Stephen E. Mays
Issue/Holding: The test for probable cause is purely objective, so that the arresting officer’s intent to arrest for a crime that is in fact non-existent is irrelevant. Because in Repenshek’s instance probable cause to arrest indisputably existed, his arrest was not illegal even though the officer thought he was arresting Repenshek for a crime that,
Arrest — Probable Cause — Preliminary Breath Test — OWI
State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler
Issue/Holding:
¶9. When Kennedy initially made contact with Begicevic, he appeared confused on how to get to Milwaukee. She immediately noticed a strong odor of intoxicants and that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. … Because Kennedy was giving Begicevic the benefit of the doubt, she had him perform a fourth field sobriety test,
Arrest – Search Incident – Blood Test – Non-Drunk Driving Offense
State v. Christopher M. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, PFR filed 12/17/04
For Repenshek: Stephen E. Mays
Issue/Holding: Warrantless blood draw incident to arrest is authorized by State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993) and State v. Seibel, 163 Wis. 2d 164, 471 N.W.2d 226 (1991), even if the arrest is for a non-drunk-driving offense (if the police reasonably suspect that the defendant’s blood contains evidence of a crime).