On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. William M. Hughes, 2011AP647-CR, District 4, 8/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hughes: Michael C. Witt; case activity

Traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion to believe Hughes was operating while intoxicated:

• The stop occurred at night, after a football game, when there is an increased frequency of drunk driving;
• Citizen informant reported observing vehicle weaving outside lane of travel on Interstate,

State v. Steven A. Avery, 2011 WI App 124 (recommended for publication); for Avery: Martha K. Askins, Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Search Warrant – Execution – Reasonableness 

Warrant-based search of Avery’s property was a reasonable continuation of the original search 3 days earlier.

General statement:

¶18      Generally, searches are subject to the “one warrant, one search” rule.  

State v. Bridgette M. Glaze, 2010AP3128-CR, District 2, 8/24/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Glaze: John C. Orth; case activity

Although Glaze’s stop by one officer investigating possible domestic violence was likely unsupported (¶9), the stop was adequately supported by an alternative basis: observations of a second, off-duty officer which, under the “collective knowledge” doctrine were imputed to the first officer and supplied reasonable suspicion that Glaze was driving while intoxicated.

State v. James G. Brereton, 2011 WI App 127 (recommended for publication); for Brereton: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

After lawfully stopping Brereton, the police removed him from his car, towed it to a lot and then, after obtaining a warrant, attached a GPS tracking device. Ensuing monitoring led to information connecting Brereton to a crime. The court holds as follows:

• Fourth amendment concerns are implicated because the tracking device was placed inside the hood while the vehicle was in police possession and out of public view,¶8,

certification; for Rowan: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 10/25/11

Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person,

State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2011 WI App 118 (recommended for publication); for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; reversed, 2012 WI 64

Traffic Stop – No Turn Signal

Failure to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians are present doesn’t support a traffic stop:

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 346.34(1)(b) states that a driver must use a turn signal “[i]n the event that any other traffic may be affected.”  The circuit court found that Anagnos did not violate this statute when he made a left turn without using his signal,

State v. Michael D. Walters, 2010AP3156-CR, District 2, 7/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Walters: Thomas E. Hayes; case activity

Tip provided by citizen informant’s 911 call reporting drug use in car traveling on highway was sufficiently reliable to support stop, given that the informant provided her name, phone number, description of her vehicle, her proximate location and direction of travel, and remained on the line with updates:

¶23      According to Williams,

State v. Cathy Ann Currie, 2011AP322-CR, District 3, 7/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Currie: Jon Stanek; case activity

¶7        Lear testified he stopped Currie because he observed “a very large air freshener” hanging from her rearview mirror.  The court determined that any object hanging from a rearview mirror would obstruct a driver’s clear view through the front of the windshield.  The court also found Lear’s testimony about his observations credible.  

certification; for Williams: Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity; review granted, 8/31/11

Search Warrants: Court Commissioner Authority to Issue

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether court commissioners have the power to issue search warrants.  Although Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b)[1] appears to grant that power to court commissioners, appellant Williams argues that the legislature may not confer that power by statute because the Wisconsin Constitution does not authorize the legislature to grant judicial powers to court commissioners.  

County of Jefferson v. Karla J. Raue, 2010AP3131, District 4, 7/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Raue: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Act of bar patron (turning off car and taking key from Raue) was private, non-governmental action, therefore didn’t implicate Raue’s 4th amendment rights. State v. Butler, 2009 WI App 52, 317 Wis. 2d 515, 768 N.W.2d 46 (acts of private security guard not subject to 4th amendment scrutiny),