On Point blog, page 134 of 143
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,
Exigency — Destruction of Evidence (Drugs) — Entry of Residence
State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa
Issue: Whether warrantless entry of defendant’s apartment was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine (risk that evidence — drugs — will be destroyed).
Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence may be justified where both probable cause and exigent circumstances are shown. Probable cause is conceded, leaving exigent circumstances — in this instance,
Exigent Circumstances – Destruction of Evidence (Drugs) — Entry of Residence
State v. Daniel Rodriguez, 2001 WI App 206, PFR filed 9/19/01
For Rodriguez: Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a residence was justified under the following circumstances: the location was a drug “hot spot”; before entry, undercover officers saw three people enter and quickly leave; drug arrests had been made at the home two months earlier; and, when the undercover officers approached defendant,
Community Caretaker — Juvenile in High-crime Area
State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],
Exigency — Community Caretaker — Underage Drinking
State v. Shane M. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102
For Ferguson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the warrantless, forced police entry of a locked closet was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding:
¶12 After applying the Anderson test, we are satisfied that the police actions here qualified as ‘community caretaker.’ A search, to qualify as a community caretaker exception,
Arrest — Probable Cause — Collective Knowledge Doctrine, Applied to Informant
State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach
Issue: Whether McAttee’s arrest was supported by probable cause.
Holding:
¶11. First, Detective Kuchenreuther was entitled to rely on Officer Smith’s knowledge of the confidential informant. See State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, ¶17 n.4, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210 (arresting officer may rely on collective knowledge of police force conveyed to the officer prior to arrest),
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Probable Cause to Arrest Exists, but Officer Exercises Discretion Not to Arrest
State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich
Issue: Whether seizure of evidence may be sustained on a search-incident-to-arrest rationale, where the officer had probable cause to arrest, but was not going to arrest.
Holding:
¶11. What happens, however, when the police officer does not intend to make an arrest? Here, it is clear there was no intent on the part of the police officer to search Hart incident to the inevitable formal arrest for OWI.
Arrest — Traffic Offense — Safety Glass Law
State v. Michael M. Longcore II, 2001 WI App 15, on appeal after remand of State v. Longcore I, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether replacing a vehicle’s glass window with a plastic sheet violates the safety glass statute, § 347.43(1), so as to provide probable cause to arrest.