On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Richard S. Foley, 2014AP2601-CR, District 4, 4/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Detaining Foley in a squad car during a traffic stop was reasonable under the circumstances and didn’t transform the stop into an arrest.

Village of Chenequa v. Chad C. Schmalz, 2015AP94-FT, District 2, 4/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The stop of Schmalz’s car was not supported by reasonable suspicion or justified by the community caretaker doctrine.

Rodriguez v. United States, USSC No. 13-9972, 2015 WL 1780927 (April 21, 2015), reversing United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

Some lower courts have held that police may briefly prolong a completed traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The Supreme Court rejects that approach, and holds that a seizure justified only by a traffic violation “‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” (Slip op. at 1, quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). Thus, prolonging a traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction.

State v. Jennifer L. Wilson, 2014AP2358-CR, District 3, 4/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A person’s presence in an area with frequent calls for drug activity and a suspected drug house is not, by itself, enough to justify an investigative stop of the person; the police must have particularized information that the person might be engaged in criminal activity. Police lacked that kind of particularized information in this case, so the stop was unlawful.

County of Winnebago v. Joshua R. Hunter, 2014AP2628, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs

Hunter sought suppression of evidence supporting his conviction for OWI, and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, because law enforcement detained him for an unlawful length of time. His motion failed based on the court of appeals’ reading of the not-so-clear testimony at the suppression hearing.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; Click here for docket and briefs

Issue (composed by On Point):

Whether an articulable suspicion or probable cause that a person has violated a statute punishable only by forfeiture can justify a warrantless seizure of the person?

State v. David M. Wagner, 2014AP842-CR, District 2, 2/25/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wagner voluntarily consented to a search of his person, and was not merely “[a]cquiesc[ing] to an unlawful assertion of police authority,” State v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, 16, 299 Wis. 2d 675, 729 N.W.2d 182, when he agreed to the search on the heels of the officer’s assertion of authority to search Wagner’s car.

State v. Frederick C. Thomas, III, 2014AP816-818, 2/19/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for briefs

Thomas was convicted of OWI, operating a car with a prohibited alcohol concentration, unsafe lane deviation, and failure to signal a turn. He challenged the stop, the extension of the stop to conduct field sobriety tests, and the administration of the preliminary breath test.  The circuit court denied suppression, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Rachel L. Huck, 2014AP2190-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Having stopped a vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the registered owner had a suspended license, the officer was entitled to continue the detention to ask the driver—who clearly wasn’t the registered owner—for his driver’s license.

County of Calumet v. Lisa L. Dolajeck, 2014AP2100, District 2, 1/21/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals here affirms a decision denying a motion to dismiss OWI charges and a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. It holds that the sheriff in this case had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, and nothing requires law enforcement officers to record a stop even if they have  video cameras in their squad cars.