On Point blog, page 136 of 142
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Identified 911 Caller
State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182
For Sisk: Elvis Banks
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself.
Holding:
¶8. Here, because the caller gave what he said was his name, the trial court erred in viewing the call as an anonymous one.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Traffic Offense – Tarrying at Stop Sign
State v. Lawrence J. Fields, 2000 WI App 218, 239 Wis.2d 38, 619 N.W.2d 279
For Fields: Daniel Goggin
Issue: Whether the police stop of a car, merely because it had lingered at a stop sign for a few seconds, was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Holding: To ask the question is to answer it. This was, at least in the cop’s mind, a case of premature evasion.
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – drug investigation – auto
State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand from U.S. S.Ct., 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previously reported: 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: Whether the police had reasonable suspiciion to conduct a “protective search”
Expectation of Privacy — Abandoned Property
State v. Robert C. Knight, 2000 WI App 16, 232 Wis.2d 305, 606 N.W.2d 291
For Knight: Scott B. Taylor.
Issue: Whether the seizure of files earmarked for destruction by a disbarred attorney violated the fourth amendment.
Holding: The files, which the disbarred attorney had turned over to a third party for destruction, had been abandoned and therefore no search and seizure occurred within the meaning of the fourth amendment.
Exigency – Hot Pursuit – Reported Burglary in Progress
State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing State v. Richter, 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶29 There are four well-recognized categories of exigent circumstances that have been held to authorize a law enforcement officer’s warrantless entry into a home: 1) hot pursuit of a suspect,
Exigency — Emergency Doctrine — Warrantless Entry to Check on Welfare of Child
State v. Rick R. Rome, 2000 WI App 243, 239 Wis.2d 491, 620 N.W.2d 225
For Rome: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Police entry into a home and subsequent seizure of drugs in a closet was justified under the emergency doctrine:
¶12 In State v. Pires, 55 Wis. 2d 597, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972), the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the emergency rule as an exception to the warrant requirement,
Exigency — Community Caretaker Entry of Residence, Suicide Prevention — “Protective Sweep”
State v. Walter Horngren, 2000 WI App 177, 238 Wis.2d 347, 617 N.W.2d 508
For Horngren: James M. Weber
Issue/Holding1:
¶10 Horngren contends that the police entry, in response to a suicide threat, was made pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 51.15, “Emergency detention.” Therefore, he argues that the entry occurred while the officers were “engaging in traditional law enforcement duties,” not community caretaker duties. We disagree.
Arrest — Probable Cause — Citizen-Informant — Connection Between Defendant and Deceased
State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Stephen G. Bauer
Holding: Various informants were sufficiently reliable to support probable cause: though they weren’t expressly identified as citizen informants, they wree not suspects but, rather, “were ordinary persons who answered questions and provided information in response to a police investigation of a crime.” ¶15. (Note: though not mentioned by the court,
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” of Residence
State v. Antonion Blanco, Nora M. Al-Shammari, 2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis.2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512
For Blanco: Michael P. Jakus
Issue: Whether the police were justified, under “protective sweep” rationale, to search a crawl space in a bathroom ceiling.
Holding: Though narrowly confined to cursory inspection of places where a person might be hiding following an arrest inside of a residence, the protective-sweep doctrine in this case justified search of a crawl space bolted in place by four screws.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — Automobile Passenger’s Property Incident to Arrest of Driver
State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson
Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.
Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.