On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03
For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn

Issue/Holding: Although a party must “show strict compliance with the requirements of” § 801.10(4)(a) when service is challenged, it is not necessary to “submit an affidavit in which the process server specifically states that he or she served the defendant with ‘authenticated’ copies or did so to the best of his or her knowledge.”

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Continued detention, in order to administer field sobriety tests, was supported by reasonable suspicion, given the defendant-driver’s mild odor of alcohol as well as ambiguity surrounding the cause of the fatal accident. “Thus, one reasonable possibility was that Colstad struck the child with his pickup truck because his judgment and driving skills were impaired by alcohol.”

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Prolonged detention of the driver at the scene of a fatal accident did not transmute a temporary stop into an arrest:

¶17 Colstad argues that the duration of his detention was unreasonable because the officer directed him to wait, instead of questioning Colstad sufficiently to dispel or confirm the officer’s suspicions,

State v. Bruce A. Kassube, 2003 WI App 64
For Kassube: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶7. We conclude, however, that the totality of the circumstances supports a reasonable basis for James’s suspicion. James had known Kassube between nine and twelve years and had never known Kassube to have a driver’s license at any time during that period. Further, within eleven months of the stop, Kassube informed James that he still did not have a license.

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Although some United States Supreme Court cases seemingly assume that probable cause is required to support a stop for civil infractions, state precedent allows such a stop on reasonable suspicion, ¶12. The stop in this case is upheld:

¶14 The undisputed testimony demonstrates that the collision occurred on a straight road with “absolutely clear”

State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie

Issue/Holding: Police tow of an automobile for “safekeeping,” even though “none of the typical public safety concerns illustrated by Opperman are at issue,” but rather on the ground that the vehicle was unlocked and therefore potentially at risk of theft, was unreasonable because effective alternatives to police seizure were available:

¶21.

State v. Scott Michael Harwood, 2003 WI App 215
For Harwood: Pat J. Schott, Margaret G. Zickuhr

Issue: Whether warrantless entry was supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances, as required by State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶17, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, based upon a tenant’s reporting a break-in at another apartment within the complex.

Holding1 (probable cause):

¶15.

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: The police had probable cause to arrest Kutz for involvement in his wife’s disappearance where: there was reason to believe that she had suffered serious harm given that she hadn’t returned to her mother’s house as expected, her family had unsuccessfully looked for her, and it was unlike her not to notify her family of a change in plans,

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶16. To determine if probable cause exists, the court must consider whether “the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable police officer to believe … that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.” 

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds (for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590)
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue1: Whether the search of Knapp’s bedroom was properly consented to by his brother (George),