On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Richard Rusk, 2019AP135-CR, 8/29/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Rusk because he believed that tinting on the windshield of Rusk’s vehicles extended so far down as to violate Wis. Admin § Trans 305.34(6)(c)(May 2014). Rusk argued that this was a mistake of law because the rule was invalid and moved to suppress evidence of an OWI 3rd. He lost the circuit court, and loses again on appeal.

State v. Robert L. Kavalauskas, 2019AP610-CR, District 2, 8/21/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

And court finds reasonable suspicion to stop and detain driver to investigate OWI!

State v. Yunus E. Turkmen, 2018AP1673-CR, District 3, 8/13/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Turkmen after he made a U-turn in the middle of an intersection and squealed his tires loudly. (¶3). Based on that conduct and information obtained and observations made after the stop, there was a reasonable basis to extend the stop to conduct field sobriety tests.

County of Dunn v. Cashe L. Newville, 2018AP1167, 8/6/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Newville was pulled over by a sheriff’s deputy who observed that, among other things, his license plate lamps weren’t working. An arrest on suspicion of operating under the influence of methamphetamine followed. The court of appeals blesses every step in the investigation that led to that arrest.

State v. Denise R. Campbell, 2018AP1190, 7/16/19, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a state’s appeal of the suppression of evidence derived from the stopping of Denise Campbell’s vehicle. The arresting deputy testified to various unusual driving behaviors and, in the court of appeals’ view, the trial court credited that testimony but misapplied the law to the facts. The court of appeals accordingly reverses the grant of suppression.

State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2019 WI App 34, petition for review granted, 10/15/19, affirmed, 2020 WI 63; case activity (including links to briefs)

This is a published, split decision with a vigorous, showstopping “concurrence” by Reilly. Neubauer and Hagedorn hold that after writing Brown a ticket for a seatbelt violation, an officer’s request that he exit his car and consent to a search (where he was looking for drugs and weapons) was part of the traffic stop’s original mission.  Reilly “concurs” only because he can’t defy SCOW’s recent opinions in State v. Floyd and State v. Wright, which he regards as intellectually dishonest and akin to the Dred Scott decision.

State v. Kelly W. Brown, 2018AP2382-CR, Distrct 4, 5/23/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Deputy Weinfurter stopped Brown because he thought that Brown’s car had 6 headlights illuminated on its front rather than the maximum of 4 allowed by §347.07(1). The stop led to an OWI 2nd charge. Brown moved to suppress arguing that the deputy’s assumptions about the number of headlights on his car were unreasonable. Indeed his car had only 4 headlights.

State v. John Patrick Wright, 2019 WI 45, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The supreme court holds (again) that, as part of any routine traffic stop, police may ask a driver whether he or she is carrying a weapon.

Kansas v. Glover, USSC No. 18-556, certiorari granted 4/1/19

Question presented:

Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.

State v. Faith A. Parafiniuk, 2018AP1956, District 2, 3/27/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The stop of Parafiniuk’s car was supported by reasonable suspicion and the officer had sufficient reason to extend the stop to administer field sobriety tests.