On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Currie: Jon Stanek; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Raue: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity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

State v. Ryan Stefan Roberts, 2010AP2899, District 4, 6/30/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberts: Bruce J. Rosen, Susan C. Blesener; case activity

Request for preliminary breath test supported by probable cause, despite somewhat inconclusive field test results, in view of strong odor of alcohol emitted by Roberts along with his admission of drinking. County of Jefferson v. Renz,

State v. Lisa K. Beckman, 2010AP2564-CR, District 2, 6/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Beckman: Gary Grass; case activity

¶12      Here, Schubel observed Beckman’s vehicle at 11:40 p.m. on a Sunday night in a parking lot behind one closed business before it proceeded to the parking lot of another closed business.  There were no lights on at either location.  Schubel considered this activity in light of his knowledge that there had been reports of burglaries of small businesses in the area. 

State v. Deandre A. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, affirming unpublished CIA decision; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Frisk – Auto

Frisk of Buchanan, following routine traffic stop for speeding, was supported by reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous.

¶3   We hold that under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trooper’s observation of Buchanan’s furtive movements and visible nervousness,

State v. Felton O. Shands, 2010AP2407-CR, District 1, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shands: Randall E. Paulson; case activity

High-crime area (what else?) + hand-rolled cigarette “furtively” (what else?) thrown down by occupant of parked car on police approach + bit of embellishment = reasonable suspicion the occupant is armed and dangerous (what else?).

¶23      We conclude, based upon the totality of the circuit court’s findings of fact,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thompson: Gregg H. Novack; case activity

Traffic Stop – Ordering Driver Out of Car

¶6        Thompson contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the officer did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment rights by ordering Thompson to get out of his car following the traffic stop.  This is how Thompson puts it in his brief:  “Mr. Thompson specifically argues that the Milwaukee Police Department had no legal right to order him from his vehicle.”  It is settled,

Docket

Decision below: United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

Questions Presented:

1. [from Petition:] Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

Docket

Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143

Questions Presented (from Petition):

This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v.