On Point: I. Suppression hearings

State v. Chad Allen Nelson, 2013Ap1926-CR, District 3, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Scene: The parking lot of Frosty’s Outpost, on County Road H in rural Bayfield County, 2:00 a.m. Police get a dispatch: Someone’s damaging a patron’s vehicle in the parking lot. Before an officer can respond dispatch sends an update: The suspects are bear hunters, and they left in a blue Dodge pickup with a hound box heading toward the bear camp west of Ino on Highway 2.

Florida v. Harris, USSC No. 11-817, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, overruling Harris v. Florida, 71 So. 3d 756 (2011)

In a unanimous decision addressing the question of when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that the state produce records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to support probable cause.

on review of published opinion; for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; prior post

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Refusal Hearing Challenge to Arrest

Issues (composed by On Point): 

1. Whether the officer could lawfully stop Anagnos’ vehicle for failing to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians were present, § 346.34(1)(b).

2. Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Anagnos’

State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2011 WI App 118 (recommended for publication); for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; reversed, 2012 WI 64

Traffic Stop – No Turn Signal

Failure to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians are present doesn’t support a traffic stop:

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 346.34(1)(b) states that a driver must use a turn signal “[i]n the event that any other traffic may be affected.”  The circuit court found that Anagnos did not violate this statute when he made a left turn without using his signal,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Franzen: Timothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Suppression Hearing – Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing

Suppression hearing isn’t required on motion which challenged probable cause to administer PBT but failed to specify the relief sought.

¶6        WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.30 deals with the required form of motions and pleadings in criminal matters,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Jenkins: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing

¶2 n.2:

Jenkins’ motion papers were inadequate and the circuit court would have been correct in denying him an evidentiary hearing. All Jenkins filed was a one-page motion with the assertion the officers had looked inside his windows;

court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing

¶6        Regarding the applicability of [State v.] Garner [, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996) to the present case, we find no published cases applying Garner’s modified Nelson test to a pretrial motion to suppress anything other than witness identification evidence.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Immaterial differences of memory don’t establish the “deliberate falsity or reckless disregard” for truth required to trigger a Franks hearing, ¶¶17-21; nor is such a hearing mandated in the absence of specific request, ¶22.

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

Issue/Holding: Expert testimony is not a prerequisite for admission of a PBT result at a suppression hearing. ¶29.

State v. Harold C. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152
For Mikkelson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state waived an appellate argument in opposition to suppression by not raising it at the suppression hearing.

Holding:

¶14 “The waiver rule serves several important objectives. Raising issues at the [circuit] court level allows the …. court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first place,