On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Joseph E. Jenamann, 2010AP1825-CR, District 4, 11/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jenamann: Matthew Allen; State BiC; Jenamann Resp; Reply

Continuing detention, following routine traffic stop for loud muffler and after Jenamann passed sobriety tests, was unlawful:

¶12      The only suspicious factors suggesting drug activity were bloodshot, glassy eyes, shakiness, and a nervous suspect. 

State v. Joshua L. McDonald, 2010AP1045-CR, District 4, 11/18/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for McDonald: Tracey A. Wood; McDonald BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Duration

¶13      We conclude that the time it took for the deputy to ask McDonald whether he had been drinking that night and for McDonald to answer did not unreasonably prolong the stop.  

State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held  sufficiently reliable to support stop:

¶12      We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case.  The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,

State v. Joseph F. Brown, 2010AP832-CR, District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.

It violates § 347.12(1)(a) to flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle if the latter’s high-beams are not themselves lit. Because Brown flashed his high-beams within 500 feet of an officer’s oncoming vehicle and, according to the trial court’s findings,

State v. Dennis Butler, 2010AP864-CR, District 2, 10/13/10 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Butler: Kathleen A. Lindgren; BiC; Resp.

Frisk upheld, where initial contact came within community caretaker function, and Butler then gave cause to believe he was armed and dangerous.

¶13      We hold that Pergande properly exercised his community caretaker function during his entire encounter with Butler.  

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply

OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing

Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,

City of Kenosha v. Elizabeth R. Tower, 2009AP1957, District 2, 10/6/10  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tower: Michael F. Torphy; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Because the police knew Tower was merely stopped temporarily for the purpose of dropping of a passenger – an explicit statutory exception to illegal parking – they didn’t have reasonable suspicion to temporarily seize her for illegal parking:

¶10 The City argues that like the officers in Renz,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Grenie: John C. Orth; Steven J. House; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Blue Lights

Traffic stop for having blue lights lit on front of vehicle, upheld. (§ 347.07(2)(a) bars display of “(a)ny color of light other than white or amber visible from directly in front.”)

¶6        Grenie essentially asks this court to credit testimony by his two witnesses suggesting that the blue lights were “never” operational over the officer’s testimony that he saw the lights lit when Grenie’s Jeep passed him.

State v. Joseph Donald Peacock, 2010AP954-CR, District 3, 9/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Peacock: James R. Phelan; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Because the officer knew from previous contacts, including one a mere 6 days prior, that Peacock’s driver’s license was suspended, he had reasonable suspicion to stop Peacock’s vehicle even though there were multiple occupants and the officer couldn’t see the driver.

State v. Jerome Hoehne, 2009AP2561-CR, District 4, 9/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoehen: Bill Ginsberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation: Driving in Center Lane

Driving in the center lane of a 3-lane highway did not support probable cause to arrest for a traffic violation:

¶8        On appeal,