Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Patrick Hogan, 2013AP430-CR, petition for review granted 11/14/14

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by Hogan’s petition for review):

1. When a person is illegally detained by law enforcement for a period of time and then is verbally released by the officers for a comparatively very brief period of time before being re-approached by the officer(s), when is the time of the officers’ disengagement of the person properly regarded as a brief interruption of the illegal detention and when should the disengagement be regarded as the end of one stop and the start of a second stop?

2. In context, does allowing a person illegally detained for approximately 15 minutes as part of a traffic stop-turned-criminal investigation to leave the scene for approximately 16 seconds before re-approaching the person adequately remove the taint of the illegal detention?

Factually and legally this case is very interesting. A deputy stopped Hogan for a seatbelt violation. After obtaining Hogan’s license and registration, the deputy called for back up from the Boscobel police department. The officer who responded told the deputy there were rumors that Hogan was a “meth cook” etc., wondered how soon they could get a drug dog at the scene, and discussed whether Hogan might be persuaded to consent to a search. The deputy asked Hogan to perform a field sobriety test, which he passed.  So the deputy told Hogan he was “free to go” and started to walk to his squad car. But within 16 seconds he changed his mind, asked to speak with Hogan again, and requested permission to search his truck. Hogan agreed. The deputy found pistols, meth etc. Hogan says he was illegally seized when he consented to the search of the truck despite the deputy’s “brief disengagement” of him, and that State v. Williams, 255 Wis.2d 1, 646 N.W.2d 834 (202), relied upon by the court of appeals, is not controlling because Williams was never illegally detained to begin with. Alternatively, Hogan argues that if the illegal detention had ended, then his consent was tainted by the prior 4th Amendment violation under State v. Phillips, 218 Wis. 2d 180, 577 N.W.2d 794 (1998) and State v. Bermudez, 221 Wis. 2d 338, 585 N.W.2d 628 9Ct. App. 1998).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment