On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Mark T. Solheim, 2024AP239, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In its decision reversing the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant for a blood draw, the Court of Appeals reminds that Franks and its Wisconsin counterpart Anderson require defendants challenging the veracity of an affidavit in support of a search warrant to do more than show the affidavit contained false information, but also that the officer knew the information was false at the time it was asserted and included it intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

State v. Reichert, 2023AP1224, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Roxanne Reichert appealed from a judgment of conviction after she pled no contest to operating a vehicle under the influence.  She argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized after she was stopped in her vehicle.  The Court of Appeals affirmed and found that: 1) police were justified to stop Reichert as a community caretaking function; and 2) police had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate Reichert for criminal activity, including OWI.

City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat.  § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.

State v. Michael Gene Wiskowski, 2024 WI 23, 6/18/24, reversing and remanding an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Community caretaking does not allow police to continue seizure after officer resolves purpose for stop unless reasonable suspicion or probable cause developed.  Three justices question continuing validity of Wisconsin’s community caretaking precedent in light of SCOTUS’s decision in Caniglia v. Strom.

State v. Joseph S. Schenian, 2023AP2017-CR, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite Schenian’s best efforts to do away with a damaging PBT result, COA rejects his arguments and affirms.

City of Hartford v. Edward H. White, 2023AP1813 & 2023AP1814, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although White tries to argue that he was under an unconstitutional constructive arrest when initially seized for suspicion of an OWI offense, COA finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.

Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity

LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16. 

State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.

State v. Andre L. Jones, 2023AP1535-CR, 2023AP1536-CR, 2023AP1537-CR and 2023AP1538-CR, 5/16/24, District IV(not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare appeal of an order denying a motion for return of property, COA rejects a novel statutory construction argument by adhering to what it views as binding precedent.

State v. Iain A. Johnson, 2022AP389-CR, 4/2/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Although COA concedes this is a “close case,” it nevertheless concludes that the evidence satisfies the relatively low burden for reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop.