Wisconsin Court of Appeals Upholds Suppression of Evidence Ruling
Recently, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that involved the suppression of evidence during a traffic stop. The case, State v. Carstensen 2014AP463-CR, is a clear win for the defense.
The facts are relatively straightforward. A sheriff’s deputy was on duty in an unmarked squad car on March 6, 2013 at approximately 3:25 a.m. The deputy noticed a white truck stop at an intersection and sit at the stop sign for approximately 10 seconds. There was no other traffic in the area. After this stop, the deputy followed the truck and determined that the truck did not have a license plate on the rear bumper. The truck pulled over on its own and the deputy pulled up behind the truck and activated his emergency lights.
As the deputy was approaching the truck, he could see a temporary Colorado license tag in the rear windshield. The deputy then began to talk with the driver and explained why he had stopped the truck. When asked by the deputy why he had stopped so long at the stop sign, the driver replied that he had dropped a cigarette. The deputy then asked the driver where he bought the truck.
After this discussion, the deputy asked the driver to produce paperwork that demonstrated he recently bought the truck. The driver began to go through the armrest, looking for the paperwork, the deputy saw an open wine cooler and a glass pipe. When the deputy asked if the driver had any marijuana, the driver responded that he did.
The circuit court and court of appeals found that the length of the stop and nature of the deputy’s questioning exceeded what the Fourth Amendment allows. The Court held that when the deputy found out that the truck did indeed have a rear license plate, the deputy should have told the driver why he was stopped, explained the mistake and let him leave. Instead, the deputy continued to question the driver even after the deputy determined that the original reason for the stop was incorrect. The Court essentially found that given the initial reason for the stop, the stop and seizure lasted too long and was unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, case will not be published and thus has limited precedential value. However, this rare defense win on a Fourth Amendment case provides hope for everyone that the constitution’s protections against unwarranted police intrusions are still, albeit rarely, upheld.
