On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … When a person provides oral identification to a police officer conducting a Terry stop and request for identification, may the officer perform a limited search for identifying papers when the information provided is not confirmed by police records?

State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the “collective knowledge” doctrine applies when the information in the possession of one police officer is not in fact communicated to another officer.

Holding: ¶17 n. 4:

(I)n order for the collective-information rule to apply, such information must actually be passed to the officer before he or she makes an arrest or conducts a search.

State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182
For Sisk: Elvis Banks

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself.

Holding:

¶8. Here, because the caller gave what he said was his name, the trial court erred in viewing the call as an anonymous one.

State v. Lawrence J. Fields, 2000 WI App 218, 239 Wis.2d 38, 619 N.W.2d 279
For Fields: Daniel Goggin

Issue: Whether the police stop of a car, merely because it had lingered at a stop sign for a few seconds, was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Holding: To ask the question is to answer it. This was, at least in the cop’s mind, a case of premature evasion.

State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand from U.S. S.Ct., 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previously reported: State v. Roosevelt Williams, 225 Wis. 2d 159, 591 N.W.2d 823 (1999); State v. Williams, 214 Wis. 2d 412, 570 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1997).For Williams: Melinda Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspiciion to conduct a “protective search”

State v. Louis Taylor, 226 Wis.2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Taylor: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Taylor walked out the back door as police were knocking on the front door to execute a warrant for someone else, in an area described as “high drug … high gang.” The police were entitled to seize him:

We agree with the trial court that the totality of the facts supports a reasonable basis for Veselik’s suspicion that something unlawful was afoot with Taylor.  

State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.

Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”

Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,

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

Issue/Holding: The police didn’t have reasonable suspicion to extend a routine stop for speeding based on the following: the driver’s wallet was adorned with a picture of a mushroom, coupled with the officer’s experience that the depiction of mushrooms may signify hallucinogenic use; lateness of the hour; driver’s implausible explanation of itinerary;

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) –