On Point blog, page 97 of 142
Traffic Stop – Duration; Field Sobriety Testing – PBT
State v. Joshua L. McDonald, 2010AP1045-CR, District 4, 11/18/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for McDonald: Tracey A. Wood; McDonald BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Traffic Stop – Duration
¶13 We conclude that the time it took for the deputy to ask McDonald whether he had been drinking that night and for McDonald to answer did not unreasonably prolong the stop.
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory; Search & Seizure – Plain View
State v. Jason W. Kucik, 2009AP933-CR, District 1, 11/16/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Kucik: Thomas J. Nitschke; Resp. Br.; Reply; Kucik Supp. Br.; State’s Supp. Br.
Appellate Procedure – Affirmance on Different Theory than Posited Below
¶31 We agree with the State that it is appropriate for us to consider the alternate basis to affirm the trial court that the State raised for the first time at oral argument.
Jose Tolentino v. New York, USSC No. 09-11556, Cert. Granted 11/15/10
Dismissed as improvidently granted, 3/29/11
Decision below (New York Court of Appeals)
Question Presented (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)
Whether someone’s driving record is suppressible as the fruit of an illegal stop or arrest.
A mere 6 days ago, Mr. Badger raised an alert on the core of this issue:
Traffic Stop – Informant Reliability
State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held sufficiently reliable to support stop:
¶12 We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case. The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,
Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (CTA11)
Question Presented (from cert petition):
Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.
Fall-out from the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, review granted 10/27/10
decision below: certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; court of appeals briefs: Resp.; Reply
Issue (from Table of Cases):
Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,
Probable Cause – OWI Arrest
State v. Michael A. Barahona, 2010AP1324, District 4, 10/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Barahona: Walter A. Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶14 The undisputed facts as disclosed from the record reveal the following: (1) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle driving in the wrong direction in the eastbound lane of Campus Drive; (2) Marks observed Barahona’s vehicle cross the dotted line dividing two lanes of traffic by approximately one foot and drive over that line for approximately one block when he was pulled over by Marks;
Traffic Stop – High-Beam Violation
State v. Joseph F. Brown, 2010AP832-CR, District 4, 10/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.
It violates § 347.12(1)(a) to flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle if the latter’s high-beams are not themselves lit. Because Brown flashed his high-beams within 500 feet of an officer’s oncoming vehicle and, according to the trial court’s findings,
Community Caretaker – Frisk
State v. Dennis Butler, 2010AP864-CR, District 2, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Butler: Kathleen A. Lindgren; BiC; Resp.
Frisk upheld, where initial contact came within community caretaker function, and Butler then gave cause to believe he was armed and dangerous.
¶13 We hold that Pergande properly exercised his community caretaker function during his entire encounter with Butler.
Camreta v. Greene, USSC No. 09-1454 / Alford v. Greene, No. 09-1478, cert granted 10/12/10
Consolidated cases:
Camreta
Decision Below (9th Cir)
Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant, a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused.