On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Manuel Talavera, 2015AP701-CR, District 2, 9/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

To  justify a warrantless traffic stop based on a violation of § 346.34(1)(b), the officer doesn’t need evidence that a driver’s failure to signal before turning his vehicle actually affected other traffic because the statute simply requires motorists to signal turns whenever “other traffic may be affected by the movement.” Thus, evidence that Talavera failed to signal when there was a (police) vehicle following two car lengths behind him was sufficient to justify stopping him.

United States v. Rodolpho Hernandez Flores, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1515, 8/19/15 (per curiam)

Hernandez Flores was stopped for driving with an obstructed license plate because his rear plate was affixed to his car by a standard frame that covered the plate’s periphery. The stop violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based on an unreasonable mistake of law regarding the statute governing the display of license plates.

United States v. Bodie B. Witzlib, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1115, 8/7/15

The search of the basement of the home Witzlib was living in with his grandmother was valid because the area was shared and not Witzlib’s private space. Nor was the consent affected by the fact that after Witzlib answered the officers’ knock on the front door they asked him to come out of the house onto the driveway and, after he refused consent to search, they went back to ask for his grandmother’s consent to search.

Louise Milan v. Billy Bolin, et al., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1207, 7/31/15

Police officers who conducted a SWAT raid on the wrong home weren’t entitled to qualified immunity because of their “insouciance” about another, more probable suspect of the crime being investigated and “the perfunctory nature of their investigation before the search….” (Slip op. at 4).

United States v. Larry Bentley, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 13-2995, 7/28/15

A drug dog’s alert on Bentley’s car during a traffic stop was sufficient to establish probable cause to search in light of the standard established by Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2013).

United States v. Dontray A. Smith, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2982, 7/20/15

Smith’s encounter with two officers on bicycles amounted to a seizure based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, and because he was seized without reasonable suspicion, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

State v. Emiliano Calzadas, 2015AP162-CR, District 4, 9/3/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped the vehicle Calzadas was driving because registered owner—who was female—had a suspended driver’s license; but immediately after stopping the car the officer realized Calzadas was male and thus not the registered owner. Even if the reason for the stop dissipated when the officer learned that Calzadas was not the registered owner, the officer’s request for and verification of Calzadas’s identification did not transform what was initially a lawful stop into an unreasonable seizure.

Columbia County v. Jessica N. Johnson, 2015AP332, District 4, 8/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to extend Johnson’s detention and ask her to do field sobriety tests based on additional information he gleaned after the initial contact with Johnson. State v. Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 90, 93-95, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999), applied.

Village of Fredonia v. Bruce A. Gossett, 2015AP298, District 2, 8/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police need probable cause to believe the driver is operating while intoxicated before they can request a PBT from the driver of a noncommercial vehicle; but for a commercial driver, they can request a PBT if they detect “any presence” of alcohol or have “reason to believe” the driver is operating with an alcohol concentration above zero, § 343.303, and State v. Goss, 2011 WI 104, ¶12, 338 Wis. 2d 72, 806 N.W.2d 918. The “reason to believe” standard was satisfied in this case, so police properly asked Gossett—the driver of a semi tractor-trailer—for a PBT.

Winnebago County v. Kelli M. Kosmosky, 2015AP585, District 2, 8/5/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A reasonable officer would be led to believe there was more than a possibility Kosmosky had been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated under the facts presented, even though he didn’t know exactly when she operated her vehicle.