On Point blog, page 132 of 142
Expectation of Privacy — Property or Possessory Interest Necessary
State v. Derrick Benton, 2001 WI App 81
For Benton: James Kachelski.
Issue: Whether the defendant can challenge seizure of property from an auto where he claimed no ownership or possessory interest in either the auto or the seized property.
Holding:
¶11 Although the trial court upheld the search of the car in which Benton was riding as one incident to either an arrest or as an inventory search,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Unidentified Cell Phone Caller
Paul Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Rutzinski: Craig A. Mastantuono, Maureen Fitzgerald
Issue: Whether an unidentified motorist’s cell phone report of suspicious driving justified a stop.
Holding:
¶38 In sum, we hold that the tip in this case provided sufficient justification for an investigative stop of Rutzinski. First, the tip contained sufficient indicia of the informant’s reliability: the information in the tip exposed the informant to possible identification and,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – anonymous tip
State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand, 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previous history: State v. Roosevelt Williams, 225 Wis. 2d 159, 591 N.W.2d 823 (1999); State v. Williams, 214 Wis. 2d 412, 570 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Williams: Melinda Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Issue: “(W)hether an anonymous tip containing a contemporaneous report of drug trafficking,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis: “Drug Crime” Area, Lateness of Hour, Nervousness
State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP
Issue/Holding: Police did not have reasonable suspicion to continued detention for a routine traffic problem after the purpose of the stop was fulfilled:
¶21 In evaluating reasonable suspicion, we must examine whether all the facts, when taken together, could constitute a reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Automobile – Investigate Earlier Crime
State v. Alisha M. Olson, 2001 WI App 284
For Olson: Daniel P. Fay
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop to investigate the driver for a burglary two days earlier.
Holding:
¶8. In the present case, we find sufficient facts to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Olson had committed a crime. The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department did not pull Olson’s name out of a hat.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Traffic Offense – Temporary License Sticker, Unseen by P.O.
State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP
Issue: Whether an officer may stop a car for not displaying a rear plate, when the car has a temporary license sticker which isn’t seen until after the stop.
Holding:
¶8 While the temporary license sticker in this case may be a better indicator of registration than the ‘license applied for’ sign in [State v.]Griffin[,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Duration – Traffic Offense – Prolonged by Questioning / Seeking Consent to Search
State v. Lawrence A. Williams/State v. Antwon C. Mathews, 2002 WI 94, reversing 2001 WI App 249, 248 Wis. 2d 361, 635 N.W.2d 869
For Williams: Thomas E. Knothe
For Mathews: Peter J. Thompson
Issue: Whether the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an illegal seizure and invalidate consent to search the car.
Reasonable Suspicion — Stop — Duration — Traffic Offense — Running Warrant Check on Passenger, After Purpose of Stop Resolved
State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP
Issue: Whether, following stop of a car which seemed not to have plates, identification-related investigation of passenger is permissible once the officer discovers proof (display of temporary sticker) that there is in fact no apparent violation of registration laws.
Holding: A lawful stop doesn’t become an unreasonable seizure merely because the officer asks for the passenger’s identification.
Expectation of Privacy — Guest — Premises Used Primarily for Commercial Purposes
State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126
For defendants: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether a guest temporarily on premises used primarily for commercial purposes had standing to assert suppression of evidence seized after unlawful police entry.
Holding:: Notwithstanding certain language in Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S.
Exigency — Hot Pursuit — Entry of Residence — Arrest of 3rd Party
State v. Michael J. Kryzaniak/Sherry L. Kryzaniak, 2001 WI App 44
For Kryzaniak: Raymond G. Meyer II
Issue: Whether warrantless entry of a residence to arrest a third party was justified by the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit.
Holding:
¶18 … (T)here was no immediate or continuous pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime; thus, there was no hot pursuit and no exigent circumstances.… There was no pursuit here,