Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

99-3095 In the Interest of Kelsey C.R., a person under the age of 17: State of Wisconsin v. Kelsey C.R.

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

99-3095 In the Interest of Kelsey C.R., a person under the age of 17: State of Wisconsin v. Kelsey C.R.

By: dmc-admin//June 4, 2001//

Listen to this article

We therefore affirm the court of appeals.

“When Gonzalez told Kelsey to ‘stay put,’ she ran away. We, therefore, conclude that no seizure occurred in the present case, until the officers applied physical force to Kelsey, by catching her after the 30-40 second chase.

“Even if we considered this initial exchange between the police and Kelsey to be a seizure, it would be reasonable under the police community caretaker function.

“First, the degree of public interest and the exigency of the situation support the reasonableness of the seizure. There is a strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles, as evidenced by Wis. Stat. secs. 48.19(1)(d)4 and 938.19(1)(d)4.7 In addition, the exigency of the situation supports the reasonableness of the seizure, because given all the circumstances discussed herein, something bad could have happened to Kelsey had the officers not approached her. A juvenile, alone in a dangerous neighborhood, is vulnerable to kidnappers, sexual predators, and other criminals…. Second, the attendant circumstances surrounding the seizure support its reasonableness, because Kelsey was alone, after dark, in a dangerous neighborhood. …

“In summary, we conclude that the circuit court was correct in denying Kelsey’s motion to suppress the evidence of the handgun. We conclude that the initial encounter between the police and Kelsey was not a seizure. Even if it was, it was reasonable under the police community caretaker function. We also conclude that the investigative detention of Kelsey was reasonable because the officers had reasonable suspicion that Kelsey had committed, was committing, or was about to commit, a crime. We further conclude that the pat-down search of Kelsey was reasonable, because the officers had reasonable suspicion that she may be armed and dangerous.”

Affirmed.

CONCURRING OPINION: Sykes, J., with whom Prosser, J., joins. “I agree with the majority’s two-part analysis of the stop in this case. However, I agree with the dissent’s assessment of the weapons frisk under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), at least insofar as it concludes that the facts of this case do not establish an objectively reasonable suspicion that Kelsey was armed and dangerous.”

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J., with whom Bradley, J., joins. “Today’s decision again affirms the constitutional requirement that officers must have reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that a suspect is armed and dangerous before conducting a pat-down search for weapons.

“But while paying lip service to this constitutional requirement, today’s decision so waters down the reasonable suspicion standard that the majority opinion is in effect adopting the unconstitutional blanket rule proffered by the circuit court and court of appeals that the pat-down search of Kelsey was reasonable because it was prudent for the officers to frisk Kelsey before placing her inside the squad car. …

“In sum, I conclude, as did the circuit court and court of appeals, that there was no basis for reasonable suspicion that Kelsey was armed and dangerous. The majority’s effort to spin these facts into reasonable suspicion is contradicted by the officer’s own testimony, the circuit court’s findings, and common sense.”

Court of Appeals, Crooks, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Susan E. Alesia, Madison

For Respondent: Christian R. Larsen, James E. Doyle, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests