On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

Question presented:

Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.

Navarette v. California, USSC No. 12-9490, 4/22/14, affirming People v. Navarette, No. A132343, 2012 WL 4842651 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2013) (unpublished); Scotusblog page (includes links to the briefs and commentary)

Validating the rationale employed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the stop of a vehicle based on a 911 caller’s report that the vehicle ran her off the road, even though the police officer who located and then followed the vehicle observed no improper or erratic driving.

State v. Scott E. Oberst, 2014 WI App 58; case activity

The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained during a period when binding Wisconsin appellate precedent permitted the warrantless installation of a global positioning system (GPS) device. Thus, even though the installation of the GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle was unconstitutional under United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), exclusion of the evidence obtained from the device is an inappropriate remedy.

State v. Neil A. Morton, 2013AP2366-CR, District 4, 4/17/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is another OWI case holding that a warrantless blood draw that would now be unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely is admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary  rule.

State v. Marcus Norfleet, 2013AP2294-CR, District 2, 4/9/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police had probable cause to arrest Norfleet for both eluding and operating while intoxicated under the totality of the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of arrest.

After an officer tried to stop a speeding car at around 1:00 a.m., the car accelerated,

State v. Matthew M. Moskopf, 2013AP771-CR, District 2, 4/2/14; court of appeals decision (one judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The police had collective knowledge of specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion to stop Moskopf’s vehicle where two 911 calls to the police department dispatcher–one from a bartender, another from an off-duty cop–reported that a man had been trying to get back into a bar he had been kicked out of,

State v. Jesse A. Van Camp, 2013AP2059-CR, District 3, 3/25/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Although an “[a]dmittedly … close case” (¶15), police had reasonable suspicion to stop Van Camp under all the circumstances, including his “somewhat evasive” driving behavior, even though they observed no specific criminal activity, applying State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84,

State v. Jimmie G. Minett, 2014 WI App 40; case activity

Issue:  Whether under State v. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 55, 309 Wis. 2d 601, 749 N.W.2d 611, suppression of evidence discovered during a strip search may be a remedy for violation of § 968.255?

Holding:  “No,” said the court of appeals.  Popenhagen simply abrogated case law that prohibited the circuit court from suppressing evidence obtained in violation of a statute when the statute does not expressly require suppression.

State v. Patrick E. Gordon, 2014 WI App 44; case activity

The circuit court’s findings—Gordon was in a high-crime area; he and his friends “recognized the police presence”; and, as a result, Gordon engaged in a “security adjustment,” which is “a conscious or unconscious movement that an individual does when they’re confronted by law enforcement when they’re typically carrying a weapon” and involves placing a hand over the place the gun is to make sure it’s still there (¶¶3-7,

State v. Mitchell M. Treiber, 2013AP2684-CR, District 3, 3/11/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The inevitable discovery doctrine, which provides that “evidence obtained during a search which is tainted by some illegal act may be admissible if the tainted evidence would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means,” State v. Lopez, 207 Wis. 2d 413, 427, 559 N.W.2d 264 (Ct.