On Point blog, page 4 of 10
Traffic stop to investigate erratic driving wasn’t improperly extended
State v. Travis J. Rose, 2018 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)
A police officer investigating reports of Rose’s erratic driving concluded Rose was not intoxicated by alcohol, but continued to detain him and, after securing consent, searched Rose’s car, where he found narcotics. The court of appeals holds the officer’s continued detention of Rose, and thus the consent to search the car, were lawful because the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation.
Extension of stop, FSTs okay, no reversal for error of law regarding probable cause for PBT
State v. Bradley E. Ammann, 2017AP866-CR, 12/7/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A state trooper stopped Ammann for speeding as he and his wife were driving home from a wedding reception. The trooper asked Amman to exit the car and then smelled intoxicants on him. This led to field sobriety tests and then a preliminary breath test showing that Ammann had an .068 alcohol concentration. He almost escaped with a mere citation for speeding except the trooper had to go and check his driving record.
Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies to pre-Rodriquez dog sniff
State v. James R. Stib, 2017AP3-CR, District 2, 11/15/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Stib argues his traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged to conduct a dog sniff under Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015). Assuming Stib is correct, suppression of the evidence seized after the dog alerted is inappropriate under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule because the dog sniff was conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-existing precedent, namely, State v. Arias, 2008 WI 84, 311 Wis. 2d 358, 752 N.W.2d 748.
Courts may reopen suppression hearings to give State 2nd kick at meeting burden of proof
State v. Jesse U. Felbab, 2017AP12-CR, 8/2/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again. That’s surely the State’s take away from this decision. Deputy Schoonover stopped Felbab for erratic driving and determined that field sobriety tests and a drug-detecting dog were in order, so he called for a back up. This led to the State charging Felbab with possession of THC. He moved to suppress. Before giving its decision, the court told the parties that it would be willing to grant a motion to reopen if the losing party wanted to enter more evidence into the record. Hint. Hint.
Moving driver 8 miles to conduct field sobriety tests didn’t transform stop into arrest
State v. Dane C. McKeel, 2016AP884-CR, District 4, 2/16/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
“Due to the extremely cold, windy, icy, and snowy conditions” police moved McKeel approximately 8 miles from where he was stopped to a local police department so that McKeel had the “best opportunity” to complete field sobriety tests. (¶¶4-5). Moving McKeel this far did not transform the stop into an arrest.
Extension of initial seizure justified by totality of circumstances
State v. Joshua D. Winberg, 2016AP108-CR, District 3, 1/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver was operating under the influence.
Extension of traffic stop to conduct dog sniff deemed reasonable
State v. Jordan Branovan, 2016AP622-CR, 10/5/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Here’s a sure fire way for law enforcement to comply with Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015): summon a K-9 officer before initiating a traffic stop in order to minimize the extension of it. That’s what Officer Heinen did here once he saw that Branovan was not wearing a seat belt but was wearing a hat with what looked like a multicolored pot leaf on it. Four and half minutes later, the K-9 officer arrived on the scene, conducted a sniff, which led to the discovery of THC and drug paraphernalia.
Extension of traffic stop was reasonable
State v. John J. Valenti, 2016AP662, District 2, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
After stopping and ticketing Valenti for speeding, a state trooper continued to detain him to investigate whether he was operating while intoxicated. The court of appeals rejects Valenti’s claim that the trooper lacked specific, articulable facts justifying expanding the investigatory purpose of the stop because the only fact on which the trooper acted was a general odor of intoxicants, which could have emanated from the passenger. (¶¶2-4, 6, 9).
Court of appeals sees no problem with initiation or duration of traffic stop
State v. John D. Arthur Griffin, 2015AP1271-CR, 3/3/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals finds that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car Griffin was driving and, even though that suspicion dissipated during the encounter, that the continued detention of Griffin was reasonable.
Asking driver for ID after basis for traffic stop has dissipated didn’t unreasonably extend detention
State v. Emiliano Calzadas, 2015AP162-CR, District 4, 9/3/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped the vehicle Calzadas was driving because registered owner—who was female—had a suspended driver’s license; but immediately after stopping the car the officer realized Calzadas was male and thus not the registered owner. Even if the reason for the stop dissipated when the officer learned that Calzadas was not the registered owner, the officer’s request for and verification of Calzadas’s identification did not transform what was initially a lawful stop into an unreasonable seizure.