00-1606-CR State v. Staples

By: dmc-admin//July 23, 2001//

Listen to this article

William Staples appeals pro se from a judgment entered after he pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (cocaine). Staples claims that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, Staples argues that: (1) the citizen informant, Imogene Hines, referred to in the complaint, does not exist; (2) the arresting officers’ statements are inconsistent; and (3) the police officers did not have probable cause to stop or search him.

Because Staples waived the first two arguments, and because the stop and search were constitutionally permissible, we affirm.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Donald, J., Per Curiam

Attorneys:

For Appellant: William Staples, Boscobel

For Respondent: Robert D. Donohoo, Milwaukee; Kathleen M. Ptacek, Madison

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event