On Point blog, page 54 of 59
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Evasion and Flight”
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:
¶73 Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”
Stop – Duration – Traffic Offense – Prolonged by Seeking Consent to Search
State v. Calvin R. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261
For Kolk: Michael Zell
Issue/Holding: The (lawful) traffic stop’s purpose concluded when the officer returned Kolk’s license and registration and issued his warning; however, the officer had not released Kolk from the temporary detention caused by the traffic stop when he next asked for consent to search the car and as a result Kolk’s ensuing consent was tainted,
Terry Frisk – Scope, “Effective” Patdown: Inconclusive Result as Supporting Further Intrusion
State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255
For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial
Issue: Whether the officer’s inability to perform an “effective” patdown permitted a further intrusion that led to the discovery of contraband.
Holding:
¶12 Our supreme court has not, however, addressed the scope of a permissibleTerry search where an effective patdown is impossible.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Duration – Routine Traffic Offense
State v. Reginald Jones / Maurice E. O’Neal, 2005 WI App 26, (AG’s) PFR filed 2/23/05
For Jones: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate
For O’Neal: Jess Martinez
Issue/Holding: Though the facts are almost indistinguishable from those in State v. Lawrence A. Williams, 2002 WI 94, 255 Wis. 2d 1, 646 N.W.2d 834, consent to search a car immediately after conclusion of a routine traffic stop was (unlike Williams) the product of an illegal detention.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – General
State v. Earnest Alexander, 2005 WI App 235
For Alexander: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether description of a shooting suspect as a black male wearing black skull cap, black jacket and dark pants, more than a day after the shooting permitted the stop of Alexander ten blocks east of the crime scene, wearing a black skull cap, black waist-length jacket, and black pants, along with his “perceived hesitation [and] aversion to eye contact.”
Holding: The court considers the six factors listed in State v.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Loitering
State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123
For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶17 … While the officer testified that he was going to cite Washington for loitering, he did not demonstrate a reasonable, articulable basis for doing so. Investigating a vague complaint of loitering and observing Washington in the area near a house that the officer believed to be vacant,
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Subjective Appreciation of Danger
State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶22 … The State’s principal position is two-fold: First, the State argues that an officer’s “subjective fear of the suspect” being searched, as the state poses the issue, is not a prerequisite to a valid frisk. Second, the State argues that this court should bar any questioning of an officer about his or her “subjective fear of the suspect”
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Refusing to Keep Hands out of Pockets – No Per Se Rule
State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a per se rule should be adopted allowing a frisk whenever individuals fail to comply with police directives to keep their hands out of their pockets.
Holding:
¶48. We do not adopt, as the State urges,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Test – Failure to Yield to Show of Authority
State v. Jeffrey P. Powers, 2004 WI App 143
For Powers: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶8. Before addressing Powers’ arguments, we will clarify when a seizure occurs. The trial court held that Powers was seized when Bethia activated his emergency lights. That is not the law in Wisconsin. In State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶33, 243 Wis.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Citizen Informant, Generally
State v. Jeffrey P. Powers, 2004 WI App 143
For Powers: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶9. Powers attacks the tip provided by the clerk at Osco; he contends that Bethia could not give it any credence. We begin by restating the obvious: when a caller provides his or her name, the tip is not anonymous; it is a tip from a citizen informant. See Sisk,