On Point blog, page 50 of 59
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop/Detention – Duration/Intensity – Handcuffed, Placed in Squad in Absence of Suspected Weapons
State v. Sameeh J. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5, reconsideration denied 1/20
For Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A temporary detention is narrowly circumscribed, in terms of duration and intensity, by the least intrusive means necessary to dispel suspicion¸¶27. Thus, in the absence of any reason to believe weapons were present, use of handcuffs on Griffin was unjustified, ¶30.
¶33 In sum,
State v. David G. Baake, 2009AP713-CR, Dist IV, 2/4/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp Br. (Baake); Reply (State)
Traffic Stop – Failure to Yield to Stopped Police Vehicle
Stop for failure to yield unsupported: “§ 346.072, by its plain language, only requires a motorist to change lanes if there are two or more lanes in the motorist’s direction of travel and it is safe to do so,” ¶11; no “testimony that Baake failed to slow down or that he was traveling at an unsafe speed,
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
supreme court decision; court of appeals decision; for Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Frisk – Demand that Suspect Drop Object
Frisk analysis applies to police demand that suspect drop object in hand, ¶22.
¶23 Here, Carroll led officers on a high-speed chase in a car that the officers had been observing in connection with an armed robbery investigation, and exited his car quickly while holding an unknown object.
County of Grant v. Kaleena E. Collins, 2009AP 2469-FT, Dist IV, 1/14/20
court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Rear Plate State Name Obscured
Stop OK where rear plate bracket obscured name of state.
State v. Mary B. Schaetzer, 2009AP1796-CR, Dist II, 1/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication)
Traffic Stop
Reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle for violating § 346.31(2), right hand turns to be made close as practicable to right-hand edge curb or highway.
County of Grant v. Kaleena E. Collins, 2009AP 2469-FT, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Rear Plate State Name Obscured
Stop proper where rear plate bracket obscured name of state, even though “America’s Dairyland” visible at bottom of plate; pretextual nature of stop irrelevant.
State v. John D. Tischer, Sr., 2009AP992-CR, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – Anonymous Tip Insufficient
Anonymous tip “from an unknown informant calling from an unknown location” that driver in restaurant parking lot pouring out beer insufficiently reliable to support subsequent stop, where no traffic violations or erratic driving observed.
Seizure of Person: Some Restraint Necessary; Reasonable Suspicion: Stop of Car: No Front Plate – “Frisk” of Car
State v. Leneral Louis Williams, 2010 WI App 39; for Williams: Richard L. Zaffiro; Resp Br.; Reply Br.
Seizure – Some Restraint Necessary
¶16 The Fourth Amendment is not implicated until there has been a seizure. The Court in Terry described a seizure as “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his [or her] freedom to walk away.” Id.
State v. Sameeh J. Pickens, 2010 WI App 5, reconsideration denied
court of appeals decision; for Pickens: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Reasonable Suspicion for Detention and “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
Although, “under the collective knowledge doctrine, an investigating officer with knowledge of facts amounting to reasonable suspicion may direct a second officer without such knowledge to stop and detain a suspect,” the state must prove those underlying facts. “Proof is not supplied by the mere testimony of one officer that he relied on the unspecified knowledge of another officer,” ¶¶12-13.
State v. Phillip Brian Conaway / Craig Griffin, 2010 WI App 7
court of appeals decision; for Conaway: Philip J. Brehm; for Griffin: Michael S. Murphy
Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop, Excessive Window Tint, Generally
¶3 The window tint regulation at issue here is easily summarized. Rear window tinting is permitted only if the window allows at least 35% of light to pass through, except that the limitation does not apply to tinting done during the original manufacture of a vehicle.