On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

State v. Deandre A. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, affirming unpublished CIA decision; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Shands: Randall E. Paulson; case activity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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thompson: Gregg H. Novack; case activity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.

Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11

… The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.

State v. Matthew P. Rick, 2010AP1521,District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rick: Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Warrantless blood draw is permissible under exigent circumstances doctrine, upon lawful arrest for non–jailable, civil violation. State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), followed.

State v. Charles L. Wendt, 2010AP2416, District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Michael C. Witt; case activity

“Momentary incursion” (or, “slight deviation”) into oncoming lane provided probable cause to stop motorist for violation of § 346.05. Having properly stopped Wendt, the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, given the odor of alcohol and latter’s “glassy and bloodshot eyes”: “obvious and classic”

State v. Blair T. Davis, 2011AP320,District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davis: Daniel J. Posanski; case activity

Arrest by campus policeman, outside his jurisdiction, was justifiable under either citizen’s arrest, or fresh pursuit, doctrines.

¶5        The fresh pursuit doctrine states that any Wisconsin peace officer may pursue and arrest a suspect “anywhere in the state” for a violation of any law or ordinance that the officer is authorized to enforce as long as the officer is in “fresh pursuit.”  Wis.

State v. Brian T. St. Martin, 2011 WI 44, on certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Consent to Search – Co-Tenant – Georgia v. Randolph

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) holds that a physically present resident’s objection trumps a co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search of a residence.