State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the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… Read more
6. Search incident to arrest
City of Sun Prairie v. Michael H. Smith, 2010AP2607, District 4, 5/26/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Smith: Tracey A. Wood; case activity ¶9 Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(5)(a) imposes the following obligations on law enforcement: “(1) to provide a primary test at no charge to the suspect; (2) to use reasonable diligence in offering and… Read more
State v. Joe R. Hechimovich, 2010AP2897-CR, District 4, 4/7/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hechimovich: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity Compliance with implied consent law found. Although Hechimovich initially requested a breath test, after his blood was drawn at the hospital, the deputy “gave ample opportunity” during a 10-minute period for Hechimovich to renew… Read more
State v. Tracy Smiter, 2011 WI App 15; for Smiter: Mayaan Silver; case activity; Smiter BiC; State Resp.; Reply During a routine traffic stop, passenger Smiter threw out of the window a substance the officer concluded was a marijuana blunt. Smiter was arrested for possession of marijuana (he concedes on appeal probable cause for the arrest) and the car… Read more
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by… Read more
State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp. Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed… Read more
Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2008 WI App 131; for Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch,SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply Search-Incident – Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedent ¶2 Dearborn maintains, and the State concedes, that in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), the search… Read more
State v. Timothy Charles Bauer, 2010 WI App 93; for Bauer: Catherine M. Canright; BiC; Resp.; Reply Search-Incident – Automobile By failing to address Bauer’s Arizona v. Gant argument, instead relying solely on State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 174, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986), the States’ argument compels the court to reverse the suppression order… Read more
