On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Shondrell R. Evans, 2020AP286-CR, District 4, 1/28/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Evans was seized under the Fourth Amendment when two police officers parked their marked squad cars in a way that restricted—though didn’t totally obstruct—his ability to drive away, shined their headlights and spotlights on his car, and exited their squad cars and approached Evans’s car. Because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Evans, the resulting search of his car was unlawful.

State v. Jalen F. Gillie, 2020AP372, 1/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Gillie’s car on a “dark night” because of “suspected illegal window tint.” An eventual search of the car turned up a gun and Gillie was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. On appeal he renews his argument that there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court of appeals agrees with him on this, and so reverses his conviction (and declines to address his other Fourth Amendment claims connected to the encounter).

State v. Frederick Jennings, 2019AP1539-CR, 12/22/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Three officers noticed Jennings either in or near the passenger side of a Toyota having dark tinted windows. They detained him, found marijuana and contraband in the car, arrested him, and found heroin in his pocket. Jennings moved to suppress arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the detention. Two officers testified at the suppression hearing. They contradicted each other and the body cam video, none of which supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop. While the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals reversed.

City of Oshkosh v. Brian D. Hamill, 2020AP867, District 2, 12/2/20 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The facts are just that simple. At 2:38 a.m. (bar closing time) an officer observed Hamill’s Jeep drifting to the right line of its lane, then to the center for 30-40 feet, then to the left centerline, and then to the right line of its lane. It was undisputed that Hamlin’s Jeep never crossed over either lane marker. And yet the circuit held that these facts gave the officer reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigator traffic stop.

City of New Berlin v. Eric John Dreher, 2020AP850, District 2, 11/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer testified he observed Dreher cut across lanes while turning, deviate from his lane, and travel at a high rate of speed. This led the officer to believe the driver was impaired, as “it was some of the worst driving that [he] observed in over 250 drink driv[ing] arrests.”

State v. Michael Anthony Dotson, 2019AP1082-CR, District 3, 11/24/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Though this is a “close case” (¶28), the objectively reasonable inferences from the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer who stopped Dotson’s car did not provide reasonable suspicion to believe that Dotson’s blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limits or that his ability to operate his vehicle was impaired. Thus, the officer’s detention of Dotson to conduct field sobriety tests was unlawful.

Caniglia v. Strom, USSC No. 20-157, cert granted 11/20/20

Question presented:

Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.

United States v. Cooley, USSC No. 19-1414, cert. granted 11-20-20

Question presented:

Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, certification granted 11/18/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from the certification):

Did police violate Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights by:

1. exceeding the scope of Burch’s consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages;
2. unlawfully retaining the entire cell phone download after it completed its initial investigation and closing the case without charging Burch; and
3. unlawfully conducting a second search of the cell phone download months after closing the initial investigation.

State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2019AP1317, 11/17/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 4/27/21, affirmed, 3/22/22; case activity (including briefs)

Police found Van Linn injured and intoxicated near the scene of an accident, and an ambulance took him to the hospital for treatment. At the hospital Van Linn refused an officer’s request that consent to a blood draw; the officer, claiming exigency, ordered blood taken anyway. Van Linn moved to suppress and the court held there was no exigency, and accordingly suppressed the BAC results. Shortly thereafter, the district attorney asked the court to approve a subpoena of Van Linn’s treatment records from the hospital; the court issued the subpoena and the hospital turned over the records, which included the results of the hospital’s own blood test. Van Linn asked the court to suppress those as well, but it declined. He was convicted and appealed.