On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Michael Pruett Rudolf, 2022AP157, 10/31/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer saw Rudolf swerve over the fog line and nearly strike the curb several times. Rudolf then drove lawfully for 3/4 of a mile before pulling into the parking lot of a closed auto dealership at 10:40 p.m. The officer detained Rudolf.  Lawful stop?

State v. Jason William Castillo, 2023AP398, 10/26/23, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Castillo refused to submit to a chemical test for intoxication and subsequently challenged the revocation of his driver’s license. In doing so, however, Castillo claims only that he was unlawfully seized prior to his refusal and that the unlawful seizure should result in the suppression of the evidence. The court of appeals and the state agree that Castillo was unlawfully seized, but Castillo’s suppression claim fails because “there was no form of misconduct by the deputy and exclusion would not “appreciably deter” any form of police misconduct.” (Op., ¶3).

City of Whitewater v. Douglas E. Kosch, 2022AP800, District II, 9/13/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

Although Kosch throws the kitchen sink at his OWI and refusal convictions, COA methodically works through his myriad challenges on a path toward affirmance.

State v. Michael A. Wilson, 2022AP1099, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Despite some procedural quirks, the Court of Appeals wastes no time in affirming what turns out to be a relatively straightforward refusal conviction.

State v. Nicholas Anthony Stilwell, 2022AP1839, 7/20/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case has facts remarkably like those of State v. Cundy, a recommended-for-publication case the court of appeals decided the week before. Police received a report of a hit-and-run of a parked vehicle, and learned the truck that did the hitting and running was registered to Stilwell. They went to Stilwell’s apartment and found the truck parked nearby. They buzzed Stilwell and he answered the door. They eventually entered the apartment and determined, including by the use of a PBT, that Stilwell was intoxicated, though he denied having driven his truck. They cuffed him, told him he was being “detained,” and took him to the crash scene, where after about 30 minutes they secured other evidence that Stilwell had driven his truck; they thus arrested him.

State v. Gregory L. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

A person called police and said they’d seen a particular vehicle back into a parked car at idle speed and then drive off. About 40 minutes later, an officer arrived at Cundy’s house, knowing that the suspect vehicle was registered to Cundy and finding it in the driveway. The officer knocked on the front door and eventually spoke with Cundy, who remained inside the threshold. At some point the officer declined to let Cundy end the conversation, and a bit later he ordered Cundy out, drove him in his squad to the accident scene, and had the witness identify him. The officer then returned Cundy to his home, where after some further discussion, he was arrested.

State v. Ashley Rae Baker, 2022AP1587-CR, District II, 1-judge decision, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

The Fourth Amendment protects against guilt by association by requiring probable cause to arrest or search to be specifically linked to the individual defendant. See State v. Riddle, 192 Wis. 2d 470, 478, 531 N.W.2d 408 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593 (1948). That probable cause exists to arrest one vehicle occupant does not mean probable cause exists to arrest another.

State v. Justin J. Kahle, 2022AP1555-CR, District II, 1-judge decision, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

In a case heavily reliant on SCOW’s decision in County of Grant v. Vogt, the court of appeals easily concludes that law enforcement did not seize an intoxicated motorist by virtue of shining a spotlight into that motorist’s parked truck.

State v. Jonathan M. Mark, 2022AP001739-CR, 5/10/23, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

While at a Kwik Trip investigating an unrelated incident, an officer spotted Mark whom he believed to be the subject of an outstanding warrant. When the officer conducted a Terry stop, Mark resisted and wound up pleading guilty to obstructing an officer. On appeal, he argued–unsuccessfully–that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

State v. Donte Quintell McBride, 2021AP311-CR, state’s petition to review an unpublished court of appeals decision granted, 4/18/23; affirmed, 2023 WI 68 case activity (including briefs, PFR, and response to PFR)

Issues (from the State’s PFR):

1. When reviewing a motion to suppress, what is the proper application of the “clearly erroneous” standard of review?

2. Was the seizure and subsequent search of McBride constitutional where police observed two people sitting in an unilluminated SUV, which appeared to obstruct traffic, late at night in a high crime area, and when McBride made furtive movements in response to the officer’s spotlight?