On Point blog, page 30 of 59
Court scolds State for shoddy advocacy, holds alleged “stop” was actually an arrest without probable cause
State v. Thomas J. Anker, 2014 WI App 107; case activity
If a conservation warden shouted “you’re under arrest,” ordered you to stop walking, forcibly handcuffed you, and restrained you in his car until he could turn you over to investigating authorities, would you think you were under arrest or simply “temporarily detained”? The State, with a straight face, claimed these facts showed a Terry stop. The court of appeals, with a stern tone, rebuked the State and sharply criticized its brief.
Police had reasonable suspicion to prolong stop and conduct protective sweep
State v. Elisa Estrada, 2013AP2803-CR, District 2, (not recommended for publication); case activity
Estrada did not challenge the legality of the law enforcement’s decision to stop her vehicle for a traffic violation. Her appeal focused on the decision to extend the stop longer than necessary to address a suspended registration in order to investigate a robbery that had occurred about 50 minutes earlier. She highlighted weaknesses in the facts cited to show reasonable suspicion, but the court of appeals found them plenty strong enough.
Officer reasonably assumed that the car’s owner was driving
State v. Travis Daniel Thom, 2014AP613-CR, District 3, 9/9/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A police officer reasonably assumed a car was being driven by the owner where there was no additional information suggesting someone else was driving.
Police had reasonable basis to stop car for failing to signal
State v. Deborah K. Salzwedel, 2014AP301-CR, District 4, 9/4/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s finding that Salzwedel’s act of turning without signaling affected the movement of other traffic was not clearly erroneous, and therefore the officer had a reasonable basis to stop Salzwedel for violating § 346.34(1)(b).
Police had sufficient basis to request PBT
State v. Jeanmarie Carini, 2014AP526-CR, District 2, 8/27/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was reasonable cause to believe Carini was driving while impaired and therefore police properly asked her to submit to a preliminary breath test.
Police had probable cause to arrest driver for OWI
State v. Robert J. Kowalis, 2014AP258, District 2, 8/6/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court’s refusal finding under § 343.305(9) is upheld because the officer had probable cause to arrest Kowalis for operating while intoxicated.
Trial court properly reopened case to take additional evidence regarding tip that led to stop of intoxicated driver
City of Bloomer v. James S. Frank, 2013AP2597, District 3, 8/5/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion in reopening suppression hearing to take additional evidence in the form of dispatch recordings which the city tried, but failed, to obtain before the suppression hearing in the case.
Neither stop of vehicle nor request for driver’s license was unreasonable
State v. Bradley Edward Magdzas, 2014AP250-CR, District 3, 8/5/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The police had reasonable suspicion to stop Magdzas and, once he was stopped, could reasonably ask him for his name and identification.
SCOW: Officer’s rapping on driver’s window wasn’t a seizure
County of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 7/18/14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity
“Although we acknowledge that this is a close case, we conclude that a law enforcement officer’s knock on a car window does not by itself constitute a show of authority sufficient to give rise to the belief in a reasonable person that the person is not free to leave.” (¶3).
SCOW: Stop and search of car based on officer’s misunderstanding of tail lamp statute violates 4th Amendment
State v. Antonio D. Brown, 2014 WI 69, 7/16/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity
Another defense victory! Police stopped Brown’s car due to an alleged violation of §347.13(1), which prohibits the operation of a vehicle at night unless its tail lamps are in “good working order.” In a 4-3 decision, the majority holds that the police here misunderstood the statute, so the stop was illegal. Furthermore, a stop based upon an officer’s mistake of law, is unlawful, and the results of the ensuing search must be suppressed. Justice Prosser, dissenting, predicts the majority’s interpretation will be “a bonanza for litigants seeking to challenge motor vehicle stops.” ¶79.