On Point blog, page 71 of 143
Collective knowledge of police provided reasonable suspicion for traffic stop
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,
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop OWI defendant
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,
Suppression of evidence is not a remedy for violation of sec. 968.255 authorizing strip searches
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.
“High crime area”; “recognizing police presence”; “security adjustment”: Buzz phrases not enough to justify Terry stop
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,
Even if officer’s opening of vehicle door was an unreasonable search, evidence obtained would have inevitably been discovered
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.
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,