On Point blog, page 6 of 28
SCOW approves wide police discretion in traffic stops, lets racial bias go unchecked
State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2020 WI 63, 7/3/20, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2017AP774-CR, case activity (including briefs)
“Supreme Court affirms wide discretion in traffic stops; dissent says implicit bias will go unchecked” That’s the JSOnline’s pithy description of SCOW’s 4-1 decision in this case. Also noteworthy, Justice R.G. Bradley filed a strident, bias-denying concurring opinion suggesting that court of appeals Judge Reilly should be disciplined for writing a strident, bias-acknowledging concurrence that dared to criticize two recent 4th Amendment decisions from SCOW.
COA: speeding, red eyes and dilated pupils were reasonable suspicion for OWI
State v. Michelle Greenwood, 2019AP248, 6/9/20, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Greenwood was pulled over for going 81 when the speed limit was 70. The officer testified her eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that her pupils were quite dilated, and did not constrict quickly when he shined his flashlight on them. Per the court of appeals, this was good enough to continue to detain her after the speeding was addressed in order to investigate suspected marijuana intoxication.
COA: no seizure where cop pulled up behind parked car, shined “disabling” spotlight on recent occupant
State v. Donald Simon Mullen and County of Waukesha v. Donald Simon Mullen, 2019AP1187 & 2019AP1188, 5/20/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Mullen pulled his car into a bar parking lot around 1:30 a.m. and a passing officer took interest. He pulled into the lot also, and parked behind and to the left of Mullen’s parked vehicle–Mullen had exited and was standing near the closed bar’s front door. The officer pointed at Mullen an “extremely high intensity spotlight” which serves a “disabling function”–preventing the illuminated person from seeing an approaching officer–and approached him on foot, asking where he was coming from. Was Mullen seized by the time he responded in an incriminating way?
Police had reasonable suspicion to seize person in area of a “shots fired” call
State v. Larry Alexander Norton, 2019AP1796-CR, 4/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In which the occupant of a legally parked car becomes the object of police scrutiny, for very little apparent reason, and all is found to be copacetic under the Fourth Amendment.
ShotSpotter data helped provide reasonable suspicion for stop
United States v. Terrill A. Rickmon, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-2054, 3/11/20
Police stopped a vehicle because it was emerging from the source of a ShotSpotter alert. The 7th Circuit holds that the totality of the circumstances gave the officer responding to the scene reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.
Citizens’ tip and officer’s observations provided reasonable suspicion for OWI stop
State v. Kelly C. Richardson, 2019AP1650-CR, District 2, 3/11/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police received a tip that Richardson appeared to be drunk while at a bank at 11:30 a.m. She left and drove to a Wal-Mart to shop. As she returned to her car, a sergeant approached and questioned her. He observed that she smelled of alcohol, slurred her speech, and had glassy eyes. He arrested her and she was charged with OWI 3rd and pleaded no contest.
SCOW to review extension of traffic stop case where Judge Reilly invoked Dred Scott
State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2019 WI App 34, petition for review granted 10/15/19; case activity (including links to briefs)
Issues (petition for review)
Whether police unlawfully extended a noncriminal traffic stop beyond its initial purpose?
DOT rule governing tinted car windows is valid, and so is the stop based on its suspected violation
State v. Richard Rusk, 2019AP135-CR, 8/29/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Rusk because he believed that tinting on the windshield of Rusk’s vehicles extended so far down as to violate Wis. Admin § Trans 305.34(6)(c)(May 2014). Rusk argued that this was a mistake of law because the rule was invalid and moved to suppress evidence of an OWI 3rd. He lost the circuit court, and loses again on appeal.
Man bites dog!
State v. Robert L. Kavalauskas, 2019AP610-CR, District 2, 8/21/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
And court finds reasonable suspicion to stop and detain driver to investigate OWI!
Totality of circumstances justified extension of traffic stop
State v. Yunus E. Turkmen, 2018AP1673-CR, District 3, 8/13/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Turkmen after he made a U-turn in the middle of an intersection and squealed his tires loudly. (¶3). Based on that conduct and information obtained and observations made after the stop, there was a reasonable basis to extend the stop to conduct field sobriety tests.