On Point: 2. Probable cause

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

¶16     Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Schlapper: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause Based Search of Car, After Arrest of Passenger
Police had probable cause to search car, after passenger threw marijuana out window; search-incident limitations imposed by Arizona v. Gant therefore inapplicable.

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.

Issue/Holding: A search warrant for seizure of the sorts of items Sveum used or kept in connection with a 1996 stalking conviction established probable cause he was keeping such items in 2003:

¶35      The warrant affidavit stated that the affiant was a detective with twenty-two years of experience who had specialized training in stalking crimes. 

State v. Jaime Romero, 2009 WI 32, reversing unpublished opinion
For Romero: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Search warrant affidavit, based in part on incriminatory statements of “unwitting” informant (“Mr. X”), established probable cause:

¶29      In the instant case a confidential informant told a law enforcement officer what someone else had told him.  In such a case, the veracity of each person in the chain is relevant. 

State v. Juan A. Casarez, 2008 WI App 166
For Casarez: Adam C. Essling

Issue/Holding:

¶12      Although Casarez concedes the affidavit establishes probable cause that he committed a crime, he asserts that it contains no evidence to establish that a crime was committed at his home, that the gun was ever observed at his home, or that he was ever seen with the gun at his home.

State v. Adrian J. Jackson, 2008 WI App 109
For Jackson: Craig S. Powell; Brian Kinstler

Issue: Whether a warrant established probable cause to search either the entirety of a multi-unit residential building.

Holding:

¶19      The magistrate was told only that the informant saw Jackson with two guns “at the residence of 4124 N. 21st Street” and that a booking record shows Jackson used that address eight months earlier.[9] Nothing in the Affidavit states that Jackson had been observed using both of the two-story duplex units,

State v. Michael Anthony King, 2008 WI App 129
For King: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: Search warrant based on drug transaction occurring 30 days earlier lacked probable cause, ¶32 n. 7:

… From our review of the record, it would appear that probable cause as to the search of his residence was stale. The most recent information directly tied to King was thirty days old.

State v. Dennis M. Gralinski, 2007 WI App 233
For Gralinski: Martin Kohler; Craig Powell, PFR filed 10/5/07

Issue: Whether use of the defendant’s credit card number to purchase online membership to a child pornography site established probable cause for a search warrant of the defendant’s home.

Holding:

 ¶12     Gralinski argues that the special agent’s affidavit did not demonstrate probable cause for searching his home.

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

Issue/Holding: There was an insufficiently established “nexus” between the contraband found in a package and its return address to support a search warrant for that address:

¶31 What Hennen does not describe in his affidavit is critical to our analysis. He never tells the reader that he believes Sloan is,