On Point

State v. Domingo G. Ramirez, 228 Wis.2d 561, 598 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ramirez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: When the state searches mail prior to delivery to a residence, and the addressee is not a resident, that person has a (“minimal”) burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy in the package. This requirement occupies a middle ground, between a presumptive expectation of privacy and a requirement that the “challenger”

Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah (Kahn) v. McCaughtry, 230 Wis.2d 587, 602 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kahn: Walter W. Stern.

Issue: Whether a prison inmate may be strip-searched, under the fourth amendment, upon being taken to or from segregation.

Holding: “(W)e conclude that a prison inmate in segregation status does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in his body that permits a Fourth Amendment challenge to the visual inspections to which Casteel was subjected.”

State v. Robert E. Frankwick, 229 Wis.2d 406, 599 N.W.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Frankwick: Wendy A. Patrickus

Issue/Holding: Frankwick’s truck was ordered seized and forfeited, per § 346.65(6), following OWI convictions. However, someone had perfected a lien, the day before the convictions, and the trial court voided the lien after concluding that it had been filed in bad faith. The court of appeals reverses: § 346.65 (6) doesn’t speak to perfection of liens,

State v. Louis Taylor, 226 Wis.2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Taylor: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Taylor walked out the back door as police were knocking on the front door to execute a warrant for someone else, in an area described as “high drug … high gang.” The police were entitled to seize him:

We agree with the trial court that the totality of the facts supports a reasonable basis for Veselik’s suspicion that something unlawful was afoot with Taylor.  

State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.

Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”

Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,

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. Tartorius Allen, 226 Wis.2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Allen: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Allen and his companion being in a high-crime area, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. A brief contact with a car, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. Hanging around a neighborhood for five to ten minutes,

State v. Michael M. Longcore (I), 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed by equally divided vote, 2000 WI 23, 233 Wis. 2d 278, 607 N.W.2d 620
For Longcore: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Longcore was stopped because his rear window was missing (it had been replaced with a plastic sheet). The state argues that this violated Wis. Stat. § 347.43(1) –

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. Gabriel DeRango, 229 Wis.2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed on other grounds, State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 83
For DeRango: Robert G. LeBell

Holding: The evidence was sufficient, largely because the complainant’s refusal to go along with DeRango’s scheme constituted intervention of another person, so as to satisfy the attempt statute.