On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Sarah J. Katula-Talle, 2019AP1622-CR, District 3, 10/6/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer had contact with Katula-Talle while responding to a domestic disturbance call. The department’s standard procedure in those situations is to run a driver’s license and warrant check on everyone the officers have contact with. The check on Katula-Talle showed she was revoked for an OWI-related offense. Two weeks later the officer saw her driving and stopped her on suspicion she was operating after revocation. (¶¶3-5). Was the two-week-old check enough to justify the stop, or was it only enough to give the officer a hunch?

State v. Synika Antonio Kirk, 2019AP175, 9/22/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

You know, those semis that carry like 6 or 10 cars. Kirk owned a 1989 Jaguar that was riding on such a vehicle along with several other cars. A Kansas trooper pulled the truck over and asked to inspect the driver’s paperwork. The trooper would testify that the driver’s logbook had an entry he found strange: a two-day stay in Reno, Nevada after the truck was loaded–a stop the trooper called “not normal.” He also didn’t buy the driver’s explanation that he had spent those two days trying to find tires for his truck.

State v. Scott W. Heimbruch, 2020 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

When an officer arrests a driver either for OWI or for causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion of OWI and requests a chemical test, he must read  the driver the legislatively prescribed “Informing the Accused” form. See §343.305(3) and (4). The form describes the potential penalties the driver faces for refusing the chemical test. In 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the form’s information for drivers accused of causing death or great bodily harm without suspicion OWI was inaccurate. See State v. Blackman, 2017 WI 77, ¶¶5, 38, 377 Wis. 2d 339, 898 N.W.2d 774. Unfortunately, the legislature has never bothered to change the form.

State v. Heather Jan VanBeek, 2019AP447, certification granted 9/16/20; District 2; case activity (including briefs)

We wrote about this case less than a month ago, when the court of appeals issued its certification to the supreme court. Now the certification is granted, so SCOW will have a chance to deal with the inconvenient fact that our state’s cases permit police to seize people without reasonable suspicion in order to verify their identities.

State v. James Timothy Genous, 2019AP435, review of a per curiam court of appeals decision granted 9/16/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

Do the following facts contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity: a brief encounter in a car between two or more people, an officer’s belief that one or more of those people is a known drug user, the time of day or night,

State v. Johnathan L. Johnson, 2019AP1398, 9/9/20, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson was arrested for OWI in a McDonald’s parking lot. He’d ordered some food at the drive-through, and an employee had noticed his intoxication and called police.

State v. James E. Brown, 2020AP489, 9/9/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officers responded to a call for shots fired; the caller apparently described the shooting party as a “black male wearing a black hoodie and shorts.” On arriving in the “vicinity” they saw a black man, Brown, driving a vehicle. Illuminating the interior of the vehicle, an officer thought he saw that Brown was wearing a dark-colored hoodie, and he stopped Brown. On approach, though, the officer saw that Brown was wearing a maroon sweatshirt and pants.

State v. Ashley L. Monn, 2019AP640-CR, 9/9/20, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

When police executed an arrest warrant for a man at his trailer home, they found Monn there too. They cuffed her, conducted a protective search, confirmed she had no outstanding warrants, and told her she would be released without charges. Unfortunately, she asked to get her purse from the trailer.

State v. Andrew W. Bunn, 2019AP2127-CR, 9/9/20, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

One evening, an unknown woman approached a cop car in a church parking lot near a playground and said that two adults were having oral sex in a pickup truck on the other side of a fence. The cops saw the truck but no activity inside. They didn’t ask for the woman’s name, but they did go investigate.

State v. Heather Jan VanBeek, 2019AP447, 8/12/20, District 2; certification granted 9/16/2020; case activity (including briefs)

VanBeek was sitting with a companion in her parked truck when an officer approached. There’d been a tip that people were sitting in the truck for an hour and that someone had come to the truck with a backpack, then departed. The officer asked a few questions, got satisfactory answers, and then asked for ID, purportedly for his report of the contact. The truck’s occupants were reluctant to hand over their licenses, but the officer insisted, and they did. He held onto them for more than five minutes and summoned a drug dog, who eventually alerted. At some point in this time frame, reasonable suspicion developed, but it wasn’t present when the officer took the IDs. So, was the encounter, at that point, “consensual” (as the state argues) or were the truck’s occupants seized–which, without reasonable suspicion, would be unconstitutional?