On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Dane C. McKeel, 2016AP884-CR, District 4, 2/16/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

“Due to the extremely cold, windy, icy, and snowy conditions” police moved McKeel approximately 8 miles from where he was stopped to a local police department so that McKeel had the “best opportunity” to complete field sobriety tests. (¶¶4-5). Moving McKeel this far did not transform the stop into an arrest.

Village of Ashwaubenon v. Mark J. Bowe, 2016AP594, 2/14/17, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bowe argues that standard field sobriety tests constitute a 4th Amendment search. Thus, law enforcement needs probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, before asking a suspect to perform them. The court of appeals notes that it has twice rejected this argument based on County of Jefferson v. Renz.  It meets the same fate in this appeal.

State v. Nicholas W. Stern, 2016AP1534, District 3, 2/7/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court implicitly credited the testimony of a police officer that Stern was in the wrong lane of travel as he drove toward the officer, and therefore held the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Stern for violating § 346.05(1). The circuit court’s finding is not clearly erroneous, despite Stern’s claim the officer’s testimony is contradicted by the squad car video, which he says shows Stern maintaining his lane as he approached and passed the officer.

State v. Brianna L. Flahavan, 2016AP1133-CR, 1/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Assumptions are dangerous things to make, and like all dangerous things to make–bombs, for instance, or strawberry shortcake–if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble.”

—Lemony Snicket, The Austere Academy

State v. Brandon M. Swiecichowski, 2016AP1808-CR, 1/25/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Mr. Swiecichowski was pulled over after an officer saw his vehicle driving in a construction area signed as being closed to through traffic. Before pulling him over the officer ran his plates and found the vehicle to be registered to an owner who lived seven or eight miles away from the construction zone.

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When a police officer performs a lawful traffic stop, is it reasonable for the officer to make contact with the driver to ask for the driver’s name and identification and to explain the basis for the stop, even if the reasonable suspicion supporting the stop has dispelled by the time the officer does so?

2. When an officer is unable to request a driver’s name and identification and explain the basis for a traffic stop because, as in this case, the driver indicates that the driver’s side window and door are both broken, is the officer then permitted to open the passenger’s side door to achieve that goal?

State v. Joshua D. Winberg, 2016AP108-CR, District 3, 1/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver was operating under the influence.

Review of a published court of appeals decision, 2016 WI App 64; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from petition for review):

Whether an officer’s justification to search is objectively reasonable where the suspect is not observed doing or saying anything suspicious, but cooperating in circumstances that the officer believes are suspicious?

Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present additional evidence to show Floyd did not provide valid consent to the search?

State v. Brittanie Jo Palaia, 2016AP467-CR, 12/30/17, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case history (including briefs)

Here we have the latest twist on State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, which held that an officer who knows only that a moving vehicle is registered to a person with a revoked license has reasonable suspicion for a stop.

City of Eau Claire v. David Eugene Phelps, 2016AP248, District 3, 12/28/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Contrary to the circuit court’s conclusion, a police officer’s observations about Phelps’s driving provided more than a “hunch” and justified the stop of his car.