On Point blog, page 29 of 142
Police encounter with defendant in store vestibule wasn’t a seizure
State v. William J. Smith, 2018AP320-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The encounter between police and Smith wasn’t a seizure, so the search of Smith wasn’t the fruit of an illegal seizure.
Defense win! SCOW holds closing door on officer wasn’t consent to enter
State v. Faith N. Reed, 2018 WI 109, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1609; case activity (including briefs)
Here’s something not seen in a while: our state supreme court suppressing evidence because the police violated the Fourth Amendment.
FST results provided probable cause for OWI arrest
Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.
Court of appeals again asks SCOW to decide whether “implied consent” is really consent
State v. Philip J. Hawley, 2015AP1113, District 4, 11/21/18; case activity (including briefs)
Our supreme court has, three times, set out to decide whether the implied-consent statute supplies “consent” in a Fourth Amendment sense, such that it constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. Three times, it has failed to reach a binding majority on the question–or has it? The court of appeals, in this certification, suggests perhaps the supreme court has the answer already, depending how you count the votes.
Court of appeals asks SCOW to review another case involving extension of a traffic stop
State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2017AP774-CR, District 2, 11/21/18; case activity (including briefs)
Issue:
[A]fter a ticket has been written but before delivery [of the ticket to the motorist], and in the absence of reasonable suspicion, does asking a lawfully stopped motorist to exit the car, whether he or she possesses anything of concern, and to consent to a search unlawfully extend a traffic stop?
COA: Officers had consent to enter home
State v. Kathryn M. Cooper, 2018AP1154, 11/21/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Cooper’s vehicle was involved in an accident and was found, damaged, in her driveway. An officer saw a light on near the back door of her home and went around back and knocked. Cooper waved him in. The officer told her he was investigating an accident.
SCOW: GPS tracking is a “search,” but a GPS tracking warrant is not a “search warrant”
State v. Johnny K. Pinder, 2018 WI 106, 11/16/18, on certification from the court of appeals; 2017AP208; case activity (including briefs)
The police thought Pinder was probably the culprit in a string of burglaries, so they applied for, and got, a warrant to attach a GPS device to his car. They did not actually do the attaching, though, until 10 days after they got the warrant. This seems to run afoul of Wis. Stat. § 968.15, which together with surrounding provisions defines, authorizes and regulates the issuance of search warrants. Specifically, it says a warrant not executed within five days of issuance is “void.”
Another garage hot pursuit case
State v. Jonalle L. Ferraro, 2018AP498, 11/8/18, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
As in Palmersheim just last week, here we have another successor to Weber from the 2016 term – an officer follows a driver (or recent driver) into his or her garage to arrest.
Being slumped over in driver’s seat in running car with odor of intoxicants on breath, red and glassy eyes, slurred speech, unexplained injuries, slow movements created probable cause to arrest
State v. Michael E. Hale, 2018AP812, 11/8/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Hale appeals the circuit court’s order that he unreasonably refused a chemical test; the only issue on appeal is whether the officer had probable cause.
Quasi-anonymous tip about drunk driving justified stop, despite lack of bad driving
State v. Emily J. Mays, 2018AP571-CR, District 2, 11/7/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court found the stop of Mays’s car was unlawful because the officer’s testimony and the squad car video showed that, during the time the officer was following Mays, her driving didn’t provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to believe Mays was intoxicated. The court of appeals reverses, holding that the 911 call that led the officer to follow Mays provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.