On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Robert E. Post, 2007 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Post: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: 

¶28 As in Waldner, the police officer in the present case did not observe any actions that constituted traffic violations or which, considered in isolation, provided reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. However, when considered in conjunction with all of the facts and circumstances of the case,

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15
For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23      In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), and Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the United States Supreme Court applied the principles of Terry to the validity of protective searches executed during a roadside stop.

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15
For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶47      We reject the State’s assertion that Johnson’s collapse to the ground during the frisk because of leg pain (whether feigned or actual) is in any way relevant to the reasonableness of the protective search. As we have explained,

State v. Philip R. Bons, 2007 WI App 124, PFR filed 4/24/07
For Bons: Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky

Issue: Whether a concededly proper traffic stop (for speeding) was extended without sufficient cause when the officer, after issuing the ticket and returning the license, asked to search the car.

Holding:

¶15  We conclude that Ramstack could have formed a reasonable suspicion that Bons was engaged in illegal activity,

State v. Frank C. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, PFR filed 11/8/07; prior history: Certification, 8/8/07, denied, 9/10/07
For Newer: Francis R. Lettenberger

Issue/Holding: The police have reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle whose owner’s DL is known to have been revoked, given no reason to think someone other than the owner is behind the wheel:

¶2    We now reverse the circuit court’s suppression of the evidence and remand for further proceedings.

State v. Frank C. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, PFR filed 11/8/07; prior history: Certification, 8/8/07, denied, 9/10/07
For Newer: Francis R. Lettenberger

Issue/Holding: ¶4, n. 2.

The circuit court also refused to consider the alternative grounds of the observed speeding violation because the officer “wasn’t using that as a basis for the stop.” We note that the officer’s subjective motivation for making a stop is not the issue;

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15
For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶34      Turning to the present case, the State contends that Johnson’s movement in the interior of the car was a sufficiently compelling factor to justify Stillman’s protective search of Johnson’s car. The State asserts that the court of appeals improperly concluded this single factor,

State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15
For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶45      Another factor weighs strongly against the reasonableness of the protective search in this case. Before Johnson was asked to exit the vehicle and submit to a pat down, he gave Stillman paperwork showing that his vehicle had passed an emissions test recently,

State v. Raymond Lord, Jr., 2006 WI 122, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lord: George A. Tauscheck

Issue: Whether the police may stop an automobile solely because it displays a temporary license plate.

Holding:

¶4      … Law enforcement officers cannot stop an automobile to determine whether it is properly registered unless the officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that either the automobile is being driven contrary to the laws governing its operation or that any occupant is subject to seizure in connection with the violation of an applicable law.

State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

(Apparent Dicta): Though a “close question,” in that “(w)hen a marked squad car pulls up behind a car, activates emergency flashers, and points a spotlight at the car, it certainly presents indicia of police authority,” ¶65, the court is “reluctant to conclude that the positioning of the officer’s car,