On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Tartorius Allen, 226 Wis.2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Allen: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Allen and his companion being in a high-crime area, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. A brief contact with a car, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. Hanging around a neighborhood for five to ten minutes,

State v. Michael M. Longcore (I), 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed by equally divided vote, 2000 WI 23, 233 Wis. 2d 278, 607 N.W.2d 620
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Longcore was stopped because his rear window was missing (it had been replaced with a plastic sheet). The state argues that this violated Wis. Stat. § 347.43(1) –

State v. Christopher E. Betow, 226 Wis.2d 90, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Betow: James C. Murray.

Issue/Holding:

There is no question that a police officer may stop a vehicle when he or she reasonably believes the driver is violating a traffic law; and, once stopped, the driver may be asked questions reasonably related to the nature of the stop-including his or her destination and purpose.

State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Gruen: Scott F. Anderson

Issue/Holding: Temporary detention of Gruen based on reasonable suspicion that he had caused an automobile accident while intoxicated was not converted into arrest, where the 1st officer detained him for no more than 15 minutes until a 2nd officer, from the appropriate jurisdiction could arrive; and, Gruen consented to sit in the police van to get out of the cold until the 2nd officer arrived.

State v. Quartana, 213 Wis.2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Quartana: Donal L. Connor II

Issue/Holding:

… Thus, when a person under investigation pursuant to a Terry stop is moved from one location to another, there exists a two-part inquiry. First, was the person moved within the “vicinity?” Second, was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable?”Vicinity” is commonly understood to mean “a surrounding area or district”

State v. Anthony Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243, 557 N.W.2d 245 (1996), reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Harris: Robert J. Diaz

Issue/Holding:

The only specific and articulable facts of the record before us, namely that a vehicle pulled away from the curb close to the robbery suspect’s address, and that the vehicle contained several black males, do not amount to reasonable,

State v. Daniel L. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Gaulrapp: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Asking the motorist, during a routine stop for a muffler violation, if he had drugs or weapons and then obtaining permission to search the vehicle didn’t illegally extend the detention:

The trial court here made extensive findings, and the record supports its findings. The court found the detention was of a short duration and the request to search was made within a reasonable time.

State v. Michael T. Morgan, 197 Wis. 2d 200, 539 N.W.2d 887 (1995)
For Morgan: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Calvin Malone

Issue/Holding:

… The court of appeals then held that the search of Morgan was supported by articulable facts in the record, including the “fairly-high-crime-rate area”; Morgan’s driving in two alleys at approximately 4:00 a.m.; Morgan’s nervous and unsuccessful efforts to produce a driver’s license upon request;