On Point blog, page 48 of 141
Arrest, conviction of unconscious driver upheld
State v. Mark G. McCaskill, 2015AP1487-CR, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McCaskill’s challenges to his arrest and conviction for operating with a prohibited alcohol content don’t persuade the court of appeals.
Defense wins Machner hearing on McNeely issue
State v. Patrick H. Dalton, 2016AP6-CR,7/20/16, Distrct 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals here holds that Dalton is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing move to suppress the test results from a warrantless blood draw. The record contains no evidence that exigent circumstances existed a la Missouri v. McNeely, and the officer who ordered the draw gave no indication that he ever considered seeking a warrant.
Defense files cert petition in community caretaker case
According to the dissent in State v. Matalonis, Wisconsin’s expansion of the community caretaker doctrine has pretty much swallowed the Fourth Amendment. See our prior post here. If you’re interested in this issue, take a look at the cert petition that Matalonis filed on June 30th. We’ll keep you posted on how it fares.
Consent to blood test was valid despite officer’s statement that a warrant wasn’t needed
State v. Navdeep S. Brar, 2015AP1261-CR, District 4, 7/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication),petition for review granted 12/19/2016, affirmed, 2017 WI 73 ; case activity (including briefs)
The record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that Brar consented to a blood test after his arrest for OWI and that his consent was voluntary.
Facts & circumstances supported continued detention for field sobriety testing
State v. Cynthia J. Popp, 2016AP431-CR, District 4, 7/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was reasonable suspicion to continue detaining Popp for field sobriety testing even though the officer didn’t smell alcohol on her and told dispatch and a back-up officer he wasn’t sure what caused the poor driving he’d observed.
Traffic stop was not unlawfully extended, and defendant consented to search conducted during stop
State v. Lewis O. Floyd, Jr., 2016 WI App 64, petition for review granted 1/9/2017, affirmed, 2017 WI 78; case activity (including briefs)
Police found drugs on Floyd after they searched him during a traffic stop. Floyd claims the traffic stop was extended beyond what was necessary to issue the citations he was given and that he didn’t consent to the search. The court of appeals turns back both challenges.
SCOW makes it easier for the state to satisfy the “inevitable discovery” exception to the exclusionary rule
State v. Mastella L. Jackson, 2016 WI 56, 7/1/16, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals, 2015 WI App 49, 363 Wis. 2d 553, 866 N.W.2d 768; case activity (including briefs)
Despite the “flagrant” and “reprehensible” violations of Jackson’s Fifth Amendment rights by police, the supreme court holds that physical evidence seized based in part on information obtained from those violations should not be suppressed because the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. In the course of this ruling, the court alters Wisconsin’s long-established inevitable discovery standard and refuses to rule out using the doctrine in cases where the police intentionally violate a suspect’s rights.
Unusual nervousness alone can justify extension of traffic stop
State v. Joshua J. Hams, 2015AP2656-CR, 6/30/16, District 4; (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Don’t look down! If you do–and stutter nervously in response to questioning–the police have reasonable suspicion to extend a stop of your car for a traffic violation. So says the court of appeals in a decision that veers across the constitutional line and runs into federal case law heading the opposite direction.
House’s front porch is a “public place”
State v. Tory C. Johnson, 2015AP1322-CR, 6/28/2016, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Tory Johnson raises various challenges to his jury-trial conviction for resisting an officer causing substantial bodily harm.
SCOTUS: Warrantless alcohol breath tests reasonable, blood tests not
Birchfield v. North Dakota, USSC No. 14-1468, 2016 WL 3434398 (June 23, 2016), reversing State v. Birchfield, 858 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 2015); vacating and remanding State v. Beylund, 861 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 2015); and affirming State v. Bernard, 844 N.W.2d 41 (Minn. 2014); Scotusblog pages: Birchfield, Beylund, Bernard (include links to briefs and commentary)
Three years ago, in Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), the Court rejected a bright-line rule that police may always conduct a warrantless alcohol test on a motorist they have probable cause to believe is driving drunk, pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception. In these three cases, the Court adopts a bright-line rule that the police may always conduct a warrantless alcohol test on a motorist they have arrested for driving drunk, pursuant to the search incident to arrest exception. But they can only Conduct a test of the motorist’s breath, and not the motorist’s blood. Make sense?