On Point blog, page 70 of 141
Taking defendant from site of stop to nearby police station didn’t turn stop into an arrest
State v. Michael J. Adrian, Jr., 2013AP1890-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Transporting Adrian from the site his vehicle was stopped to the nearest police station for the purpose of performing field sobriety tests did not convert a lawful Terry detention into an illegal custodial arrest.
A person temporarily detained under Terry may be moved “in the general vicinity of the stop without converting what would otherwise be a temporary seizure into an arrest.” State v.
Officer had reasonable suspicion to continue detention and administer field sobriety tests
Marquette County v. Randy S. Tomaw, 2013AP1510, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Tomaw was going 17 miles over the speed limit at 1:20 on a Sunday morning. He did not appear to respond to the officer’s initial attempt at contact, his upper body swayed as he walked to the rear of his vehicle, and the officer detected the “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath.
Officer’s approaching person on street and engaging him in conversation wasn’t a seizure
State v. Keith R. Friederick, 2013AP1609, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Friederick was not seized by officer who approached him on the street and said sought to talk to him, applying United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), along with State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, ¶53, 236 Wis.
SCOTUS: Police may conduct warrantless search of jointly-occupied dwelling if they first remove objecting occupant and then obtain co-occupant’s consent
Fernandez v. California, USSC 12-7822, 2/25/14, affirming People v. Fernandez, 145 Cal Rptr.3rd 51 (Cal Ct. App. 2012).
Docket here; SCOTUSblog analysis of decision here; Orin Kerr’s “Five Thoughts on Fernandez” here; On Point analysis of cert grant here
Police officers may, without a warrant, search a jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents to the search.
SCOTUS: No right to contest grand jury’s probable cause determination when challenging pre-trial freeze of assets
Kaley v. United States, USSC 12-464, 2/25/14
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming United States v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012)
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court holds that when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 853(e) freezes assets that are potentially subject to forfeiture but which the defendant needs to retain counsel,
Even if field sobriety tests constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, police may request them based on reasonable suspicion of impairment
Village of Little Chute v. Ronald A. Rosin, 2013AP2536, District 3, 2/25/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Rosin argues that field sobriety tests are searches under the Fourth Amendment because “[a]n inherent right as a human being is to control and coordinate the actions of [his or her] own body[,]” and, therefore “a fundamental expectation of privacy is implicated when a person is subject to the performance of [field sobriety tests].” (¶12).
Wisconsin Supreme Court grants review in three cases to address issues arising from Missouri v. McNeely
State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2011AP1673-CRNM: Review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2012AP1593-CR: Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues presented (composed by On Point)
Whether the draw of the defendant’s blood was performed without a warrant and,
Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule precludes suppression of results of warrantless blood draw that was unlawful under Missouri v. McNeely
State v. William A. Reese, 2014 WI App 27; case activity
The results of a driver’s blood test should not be suppressed even if they were obtained without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances in violation of Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), because the arresting officer acted in good faith reliance on established Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent at the time the blood draw was conducted.
Police lacked reasonable suspicion to seize driver of car in a parking lot suspected to be the site of illegal drug activity
State v. Chonsea Jerome King, 2013AP1068-CR, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
A police officer saw a car parked in a lot linked by “numerous [pieces of] intelligence” to illegal drug activity. It was 9:25 p.m. The officer watched it for about five minutes, but did not see anyone exit the vehicle or any activity outside the vehicle, though they did observe the interior lights in the car turn on and off “a couple [of] times.” (¶3).
Totality of circumstances supported stop, arrest for robbery
State v. Lamont C., 2013AP1687, District 1, 2/11/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
¶14 We conclude under the facts in this case that [Officer] Hoffman did have reasonable suspicion … to stop … Lamont C. Hoffman, relying on information provided to him by a robbery victim, located Lamont C. within minutes of the robbery. In the limited time Hoffman was able to speak with the victim,