On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Jacquese Franklin Harrell, 2010 WI App 132; for Harrell: Michael S. Holzman; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Terry Frisk – House

The police had both reasonable suspicion that Harrell had committed a violent crime, and consent to be in his house to question him. Therefore, police inspection of a chair for possible weapons before allowing Harrell to sit in it,

State v. Randall L. Wegener, 2010AP452-CR, District 1, 8/18/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wegener: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop

Inclement winter weather didn’t obviate the need to stay within the proper lane, such that crossing the center line, even briefly a few times, provided reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop.

¶6        Wegener argues that Fabry did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop because he was driving appropriately for part of the time he was followed and blames his lack of control of his vehicle on the snowy weather conditions.

State v. Steve J. Will, 2010AP723-CR, District 4, 8/12/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Will: Mark Eisenberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable suspicion to stop Will’s truck is supported under the multi-factor test of State v. Guzy, 139 Wis. 2d 663, 407 N.W.2d 548 (1987): while authorities were monitoring a marijuana field an alarm was set off,

State v. James Casas Klausen, 2009AP2268, District 4, 8/12/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Klausen: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.

Traffic Stop – No Wisconsin DL

Wisconsin law “contemplates that a person with a valid out-of-state driver’s license who becomes a Wisconsin resident has sixty days, after becoming a Wisconsin resident, to apply for a Wisconsin license,” ¶6.

State v. Glenn L. Earhart, 2010AP348-CR, District 3, 8/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earhart: Patrick J. Stangl; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable Suspicion – Informant Reliability

Authorities were under no obligation to check into a citizen-informant’s criminal record before acting on the information she related.

¶9 Earhart argues Kistner unreasonably relied on Hitchon’s report because she was a known criminal.

State v. Laurence Evan Olson, 2010AP149-CR, District 4, 8/5/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Olson: Christopher W. Dyer; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶11      WISCONSIN STAT. § 347.13(1) provides that “[n]o vehicle originally equipped at the time of manufacture and sale with 2 tail lamps shall be operated on a highway during hours of darkness unless both such lamps are in good working order.” WISCONSIN STAT. 

State v. Eric Michael Webley, No. 2010AP747-CR, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Webley: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.

The police had reasonable suspicion believe Webley was driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.02, and thus to perform field sobriety tests, after an indisputably proper stop for speeding, given the following (in addition to which, Webley admitted having had two beers):

¶8 … 

State v. Kevin A. Rhyne, No. 2009AP163, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

¶7        “An officer may conduct a traffic stop when he or she has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶13, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569 (citing State v.

State v. Brittany A. Meye, No. 2010AP336-CR, District II, 7/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Meye: Kevin G. Keane; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶6        Meye argues that the odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. We agree. We will not cite, chapter and verse, all the many cases in this state where either we or our supreme court found facts sufficient for an investigatory stop.

City of Chippewa Falls v. Kenneth C. Hein, No. 09AP2729, District III, 6/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Hein: Paul D. Polacek; BiC; (Resp. not on-line); Reply

Stop of Hein’s vehicle was supported by “reports of suspicious activity about 2:30 a.m., the nature of which was unknown:”

¶10      … A prudent officer proceeding into such ambiguity and uncertainty will ensure the availability of witnesses or suspects and freeze the scene in order to further investigate:

[A] law enforcement officer will be confronted with many situations in which it seems necessary to acquire some further information from or about a person whose name he does not know,