On Point blog, page 61 of 144
Officers’ observations and information from other witnesses provided probable cause to arrest for OWI
State v. Zach Geyer, 2014AP2625-CR, District 4, 4/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the totality of the circumstances, police had probable cause to arrest Geyer for OWI.
Driver’s failure to stop after hitting a deer didn’t justify traffic stop
Village of Chenequa v. Chad C. Schmalz, 2015AP94-FT, District 2, 4/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The stop of Schmalz’s car was not supported by reasonable suspicion or justified by the community caretaker doctrine.
SCOTUS: Police cannot prolong a completed traffic stop to conduct dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion
Rodriguez v. United States, USSC No. 13-9972, 2015 WL 1780927 (April 21, 2015), reversing United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
Some lower courts have held that police may briefly prolong a completed traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The Supreme Court rejects that approach, and holds that a seizure justified only by a traffic violation “‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” (Slip op. at 1, quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). Thus, prolonging a traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction.
Police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop person in high crime area
State v. Jennifer L. Wilson, 2014AP2358-CR, District 3, 4/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A person’s presence in an area with frequent calls for drug activity and a suspected drug house is not, by itself, enough to justify an investigative stop of the person; the police must have particularized information that the person might be engaged in criminal activity. Police lacked that kind of particularized information in this case, so the stop was unlawful.
State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2014AP108-CR, petition for review granted 4/17/15
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point):
Did the community caretaker rule authorize police to conduct a “protective sweep” of a home even though the person who needed assistance had already been identified and transported to a hospital for treatment?
Telephonic warrant for OWI blood draw satisfied § 968.12(3)
State v. Roberto F. Orozco-Angulo, 2014AP1744-CR, District 2, 4/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The procedure used to obtain a telephonic search warrant for a blood draw following Orozco-Angulo’s arrest for OWI and his refusal to submit to a blood test complied with the requirements of § 968.12(3) and therefore suppression of the evidence was not appropriate.
Detention by security guards doesn’t count as part of prolonged stop
County of Winnebago v. Joshua R. Hunter, 2014AP2628, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Hunter sought suppression of evidence supporting his conviction for OWI, and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, because law enforcement detained him for an unlawful length of time. His motion failed based on the court of appeals’ reading of the not-so-clear testimony at the suppression hearing.
Search of car upheld based on hypodermic needles in plain view and driver’s drug record
State v. Kendra E. Manlick, 2014AP2138-CR, 2014AP2626-CR, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
Manlick was charged with possession of a controlled substance and bail-jumping after an officer, who knew of her drug record, stopped the car she was driving based on an outstanding warrant for the car’s owner, observed unsterile hypodermic needles in it, and then conducted a search yielding additional incriminating evidence. Manlick’s suppression and ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed on appeal.
Suppression of marijuana irrelevant to conviction for operating with detectable amount of THC in blood
State v. Zoltan M. Peter, 2014AP1589-CR, 1/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs and docket
Peter was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. He moved to suppress the marijuana that the police seized from his car, arguably in violation of the plainharm view doctrine and lost. The court of appeals found the argument baffling.
SCOTUS: Satellite-based sex offender monitoring is a “search” under the 4th Amendment
Grady v. North Carolina, USSC No. 14-593, 2015 WL 1400850, 3/30/15 (per curiam), reversing State v. Grady, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014) (unpublished order); docket
The Supreme Court holds that a state conducts a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it attaches a device like a GPS bracelet to a person’s body without consent for the purpose of tracking the person’s movements.