On Point blog, page 85 of 141
Consent to Search – Scope – Trial Court Findings
State v. Timothy D. Moseley, 2011AP892-CR, District 1, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity
Moseley’s contention, that he qualified his written consent to search with an oral limitation, was rejected by the trial court as a matter of credibility; that finding of fact is now affirmed:
¶18 The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses.
Traffic Stop – 911 Call
State v. Michael L. Frank, 2011AP2306, District 3, 4/10/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Frank: Robert A. Kennedy, Jr.; case activity
Information, provided by a 911 caller reporting observations about Frank’s erratic driving, provided a basis for a lawful stop.
17 In this case, we conclude that Judge lawfully stopped Frank based on Shatzer’s tip.[3] A police officer may conduct a traffic stop if the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred or if the officer has reasonable suspicion,
Payton v. New York Violation (Unlawful Entry of Residence, but with Probable Cause) and New York v. Harris Attenuation Doctrine
State v. Devin W. Felix, 2012 WI 36, reversing unpublished decision; for Felix: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
Under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), warrantless arrest following nonconsensual entry of a home is illegal unless supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. However, New York v. Harris,
Strip Search – Detainee – Jail Policy
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al., USSC No. 10-945, 4/2/12, affirming 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2010)
A jail policy requiring that every detainee who will be admitted to the facility’s general population may be required to undergo close visual inspection while undressed is reasonable under the fourth amendment.
The question here is whether undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband.
Traffic Stop – Duration – Dog Sniff
State v. Dawn M. Fletcher, 2011AP1356-CR, District 3, 3/27/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fletcher: Earl J. Luaders, III; case activity
The court upholds search of a car following a drug dog alert which occurred while an officer was still processing a warning ticket for a conceded traffic violation:
¶7 On appeal, Fletcher concedes the initial stop was lawful. She argues the dog sniff was illegal because the officer had no reasonable suspicion to detain the occupants of the vehicle to request a dog sniff.
Florida v. Clayton Harris, USSC No. 11-817, cert granted 3/26/12
Question Presented (from Cert Petition):
Whether the Florida Supreme Court has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the established Fourth Amendment precedent of this Court by holding that an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle?
Florida supreme court decision (71 So.3d 756)
The Dog Whisperer might want to get its own Supreme Court correspondent.
State v. James G. Brereton, 2011 WI App 127, rev. granted 3/15/12
court of appeals decision; for Brereton: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity; prior post
Search & Seizure – GPS Device – Warrant
Issues (Composed by On Point):
Whether the police illegally seized Brereton’s car, so as to taint a subsequently issued warrant for installation of a GPS tracking device on it; or, whether tracking was unreasonable under U.S. v. Jones,
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop, OWI
Village of DeForest v. Lynn J. Braun, 2011AP2116, District 4, 3/15/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Braun: Robert Nagel; case activity
Stop for driving under the influence unsupported by reasonable suspicion:
¶11 I likewise conclude that there were insufficient facts before Officer Schaefer which could lead him to reasonably suspect that Braun was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.
Reasonable Suspicion; Instructions – Party to a Crime – Evidentiary Support; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Jermaine Kennard Young, 2010AP2959-CR, District 1, 3/6/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Young: Robert N. Meyeroff; case activity
Reasonable suspicion existed to justify investigative stop of Young, based on a tip from confidential informant that someone matching Young’s description would be at a specified time and place to sell drugs.
¶13 When determining the reliability of a CI’s tip,
Reasonable Suspicion – Collective Knowledge Doctrine; Traffic Stop – Report of Intoxicated Driver
State v. Sherri A. Wittrock, 2011AP1538-CR, District 2, 2/15/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wittrock: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶7 Where, as here, an officer relies on information provided by dispatch, “reasonable suspicion is assessed by looking at the collective knowledge of police officers.” See State v. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5,