On Point: 35. Search & Seizure

City of Mequon v. Monica Maureen Cooley, 2010AP2142, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cooley: Dudley A. Williams; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported early-morning stop of car in otherwise empty parking lot.

¶7        We agree with the circuit court that Brandemuehl conducted a lawful Terry stop.  Brandemuehl could point to specific and articulable facts[3] (Cooley turning into the parking lot of a closed movie theatre early on New Year’s morning),

County of Sheboygan v. William M. Lane, 2010AP1756, District 2, 2/2/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lane: George Limbeck; case activity; State BiC; Lane Resp.

¶6        As a threshold matter, the County addresses the proper test for assessing the validity of the traffic stop.  The County contends that the appropriate standard is “reasonable suspicion” as opposed to “probable cause.”  We disagree. 

State v. Robert L. Stokes, 2009AP919-CR, District 1, 2/1/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Stokes: John M. Bolger; case activity; Stokes BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Given trial court credibility findings, the resident’s consent to the police to enter and search was voluntary.

¶19      Finally, we are not convinced by Robert’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion regardless of whether Deborah’s consent was valid because police had no lawful reason to be in the Stokes’ yard and on their porch.  

State v. Joshua J. Hysell, 2010AP1817-CR, District 4, 1/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hysell: John Smerlinski; case activity; Hysell BiC; State Resp.

Phoned tip by driver who gave his name and described the subject vehicle as “all over the road” held sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion for stop.

Because the informant gave his name,

State v. Ashley M. Toliver, 2010AP484-CR, District 2, 1/26/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Toliver: Elizabeth Ewald-Herrick; case activity

Community caretaker doctrine supported, in the first instance, search of seemingly lost purse found in common area of apartment building; and, in the second, entry of apartment after co-inhabitant requested officer to lock it up, as he was being transported for medical care.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sagen: Charles W. Giesen, Jessica Jean Giesen; case activity; Sagen BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Community Caretaker

A yell from inside a passing truck justified a stop under the community caretaker doctrine.

¶13      We conclude that the facts as found by the circuit court satisfy this objective standard.  

decision below: unpublished; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether, during the course of a routine traffic stop, the police developed reasonable suspicion to believe Buchanan armed and dangerous so as to perform a “protective search” of his car.

The court relied on the following to show reasonable suspicion to believe Buchanan armed and dangerous, during an otherwise routine stop for speeding:

• “furtive movements”

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ebert: Chad A. Lanning; case activity; Ebert BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Consent-Based Entry

¶7        The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply when police have consent to enter a dwelling.  State v. Douglas, 123 Wis. 2d 13, 18, 365 N.W.2d 580 (1985).  The issue in this appeal is whether Ebert’s uncle consented to the search of Ebert’s residence,

State v. Thomas R. Paulick, 2010AP1883, District 2, 1/12/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paulick: Robert C. Raymond; case activity; Paulick BiC; State Resp.; Reply

The officer’s conclusion of speeding may be based on a visual estimate “while looking in his rear view mirror,” ¶8, citing City of Milwaukee v.

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply

Confrontation – Generally

The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,