On Point: 2. Probable cause

State v. Gustavo E. Lopez, 2011AP1037-CR, District 2, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lopez: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

¶8        While the record reveals that Lopez is correct in stating that the court took video evidence from the roadside stop into consideration when making the finding of probable cause, we disagree that this was in any way not allowed. When determining the facts available to the officer to formulate probable cause,

State v. Herbert L. Hamilton, 2011AP1325-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hamilton: Dixie Lippit; case activity

Although driver in single-car accident didn’t exhibit signs commonly associated with intoxication, the smell of alcohol on his breath coupled with his loss of control of the car provided probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test under § 343.303:

¶15      First,

State v. Gary F. Wieczorek, 2011AP1184-CR, District 3, 11/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wieczorek: James R. Koby; case activity

Warrantless arrest of Wieczorek on his front porch for OWI, after he answered the officer’s knock was constitutional. The record doesn’t show that Wieczorek had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the porch. ¶¶10-11, distinguishing State v. Walker,

State v. Steven C. Cushman, 2011AP957, District 4, 10/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cushman: John Smerlinksi; case activity

Probable cause to believe Cushman wasn’t wearing seat belt supported stop of his vehicle.

¶8        Wisconsin Stat. § 347.48 (2m)(gm) mandates seat belt use when operating a motor vehicle equipped with seat belts.[3]  In 2009, this statute was amended to remove language that had previously prohibited a law enforcement officer from stopping a vehicle based solely on the failure to wear a seat belt.  

State v. Wilson J. Behling, 2011AP483-CR, District 3, 10/18/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Behling: John M. Carroll; case activity

Probable cause that Behling’s backpack contained contraband supported its seizure so that a warrant could be obtained and the item searched:

¶28      We conclude Hoffman had probable cause to believe Behling’s backpack contained contraband or evidence of a crime.  Here, Hoffman’s seizure was based on the following facts: (1) Behling entered a county park where drug activity has occurred;

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Little: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

Probable Cause to Arrest 

¶14      In Stewart’s case, the pertinent facts are:

•           On March 10, 2009, a reliable confidential informant told Agent Gray that one of the people who had been arrested with Alderman McGee was going to be bringing cocaine to Milwaukee.  After Gray obtained the names and photographs of individuals who had been arrested in Alderman McGee’s case and showed them to the informant,

State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity

Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the vehicle for evidence relevant to the OWI arrest:

¶9        Here, it was reasonable for Kinservik to believe that further evidence related to Billips’ OWI arrest might be found in the vehicle.  

State v. Anastasia A. Lusty, 2010AP2827-CR, District 2, 9/21/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Lusty: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Independent police investigation sufficiently corroborated enough details of tips from anonymous informants to support probable cause for a search warrant.

¶9        We reject Lusty’s argument.  Based on our reading of the record, we are more than satisfied that the facts before the magistrate,

City of Sheboygan Falls v. John D. Prinsen, 2011AP700, District 2, 9/14/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Prinsen: Kirk B. Obear, Casey J. Hoff; case activity

Probable cause supported stop for driving wrong way on highway, based on information provided ion a 911 call; State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, applied:

¶11      The Rutzinski standard is met in this case.  

State v. Bridgette M. Glaze, 2010AP3128-CR, District 2, 8/24/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Glaze: John C. Orth; case activity

Although Glaze’s stop by one officer investigating possible domestic violence was likely unsupported (¶9), the stop was adequately supported by an alternative basis: observations of a second, off-duty officer which, under the “collective knowledge” doctrine were imputed to the first officer and supplied reasonable suspicion that Glaze was driving while intoxicated.