On Point: 2. Traffic stops

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Although some United States Supreme Court cases seemingly assume that probable cause is required to support a stop for civil infractions, state precedent allows such a stop on reasonable suspicion, ¶12. The stop in this case is upheld:

¶14 The undisputed testimony demonstrates that the collision occurred on a straight road with “absolutely clear”

State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP

Issue/Holding: Police did not have reasonable suspicion to continued detention for a routine traffic problem after the purpose of the stop was fulfilled:

¶21 In evaluating reasonable suspicion, we must examine whether all the facts, when taken together, could constitute a reasonable suspicion. State v. Allen,

State v. Christopher Gammons, 2001 WI App 36
For Gammons: Keith A. Findley, LAIP

Issue: Whether an officer may stop a car for not displaying a rear plate, when the car has a temporary license sticker which isn’t seen until after the stop.

Holding:

¶8 While the temporary license sticker in this case may be a better indicator of registration than the ‘license applied for’ sign in [State v.]Griffin[,

State v. Lawrence A. Williams/State v. Antwon C. Mathews, 2002 WI 94, reversing 2001 WI App 249, 248 Wis. 2d 361, 635 N.W.2d 869
For Williams: Thomas E. Knothe
For Mathews: Peter J. Thompson

Issue: Whether the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an illegal seizure and invalidate consent to search the car.

State v. Jose C. McGill, 2000 WI 38, 234 Wis. 2d 560, 609 N.W.2d 795, affirming unpublished decision
For McGill: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe McGill armed and dangerous, and therefore to frisk him, following a routine traffic stop.

Holding: Judged by the requisite objective test, the frisk was justified, given that: the driver didn’t stop immediately;

State v. Terry Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Griffith: Paul G. LaZotte

Issue: Whether the police lacked authority to ask the name and birth date of a passenger of a lawfully stopped car.

Holding: The police may request identifying information from passengers during traffic stops, ¶45, and though the passenger may rightfully decline to answer,

State v. Jeff S. Mohr, 2000 WI App 111, 235 Wis.2d 220, 613 N.W.2d 186
For Mohr: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the frisk of a passenger, some 25 minutes after a routine traffic stop, was supported by reasonable belief that the person was armed.

Holding: The frisk was unlawful; because it “occurred approximately twenty-five minutes after the initial traffic stop, the most natural conclusion is that the frisk was a general precautionary measure,

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. 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. 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.