On Point blog, page 24 of 59
SCOW: Tossed cigarette butt justifies traffic stop
State v. Daniel S. Iverson, 2015 WI 101, 11/25/2015, reversing a 1-judge court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Do cigarette butts decompose? Do they “result[]…from community activities”? Those are just two of the burning questions left unanswered (smoldering?) after this blaze of statutory construction.
When car has multiple owners, the fact that one owner has invalid license doesn’t by itself justify traffic stop
State v. Joshua Allan Vitek, 2015AP421-CR, District 3, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, police may reasonably assume the driver of a car is likely to be the owner, and may stop the car if they know the owner’s operating privileges are invalid. But what if more than one person owns the car, but only one of the owners has an invalid license? The state claims that a traffic stop is still justified by the fact that one of the owners has an invalid license. The court of appeals disagrees, at least when—as in this case—the state presents no evidence as to the number of registered owners and the validity of their operating privileges.
Weaving in lane twice during early morning hours justified traffic stop
City of Mequon v. Luke J. Chiarelli, 2015AP359, District 2, 10/14/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was reasonable suspicion to stop of Chiarell’s car based on two lane deviations during early morning hours and, based on observations the officer made after the stop, there was probable cause to arrest Chiarelli for OWI.
Circuit court’s findings that driver made unexplained swerve into wrong lane were not clearly erroneous
State v. Mark Alan Tralmer, 2015AP715-CR, District 4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s implicit rejection of Tralmer’s suppression hearing testimony and acceptance of the police officer’s contrary testimony were not clearly erroneous and therefore must be upheld on appeal, State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, ¶12, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748. Accordingly, the circuit court properly concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Tralmer for violating § 346.05(1) by swerving into the wrong lane of traffic when there is no obstruction requiring the driver to do so, as allowed under § 346.05(1)(d).
Police had reasonable suspicion to detain person to investigate possible pot possession
State v. John C. Martin, 2015AP597-CR, District 2, 9/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police searched a tavern bathroom for a person named in an arrest warrant; they found no one, but they did notice a strong odor of raw marijuana. Martin was the last person seen leaving the bathroom. Ergo, the police had reasonable suspicion to detain Martin and investigate whether he had drugs on him.
Evidence supported extension of stop to perform FSTs
County of Shawano v. Kory V. Amborziak, 2015AP462, 9/22/15, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
Ambroziak didn’t challenge an officer’s decision to stop his car for disorderly conduct. Instead, he contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to conduct field sobriety tests but he lost based on the facts found by the circuit court:
Traffic stop based on failure to signal before turning doesn’t require evidence that failing to signal actually affected other traffic
State v. Manuel Talavera, 2015AP701-CR, District 2, 9/9/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
To justify a warrantless traffic stop based on a violation of § 346.34(1)(b), the officer doesn’t need evidence that a driver’s failure to signal before turning his vehicle actually affected other traffic because the statute simply requires motorists to signal turns whenever “other traffic may be affected by the movement.” Thus, evidence that Talavera failed to signal when there was a (police) vehicle following two car lengths behind him was sufficient to justify stopping him.
Officer unreasonably concluded that frame around license plate violated plate-display statute
United States v. Rodolpho Hernandez Flores, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1515, 8/19/15 (per curiam)
Hernandez Flores was stopped for driving with an obstructed license plate because his rear plate was affixed to his car by a standard frame that covered the plate’s periphery. The stop violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based on an unreasonable mistake of law regarding the statute governing the display of license plates.
Pedestrian was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes by actions of officers on bicycles
United States v. Dontray A. Smith, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-2982, 7/20/15
Smith’s encounter with two officers on bicycles amounted to a seizure based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, and because he was seized without reasonable suspicion, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Asking driver for ID after basis for traffic stop has dissipated didn’t unreasonably extend detention
State v. Emiliano Calzadas, 2015AP162-CR, District 4, 9/3/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped the vehicle Calzadas was driving because registered owner—who was female—had a suspended driver’s license; but immediately after stopping the car the officer realized Calzadas was male and thus not the registered owner. Even if the reason for the stop dissipated when the officer learned that Calzadas was not the registered owner, the officer’s request for and verification of Calzadas’s identification did not transform what was initially a lawful stop into an unreasonable seizure.