By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//September 15, 2010//
Search and Seizure
Reasonable suspicion
Norman P. Roberts appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Roberts argues on appeal that the circuit court erred when it denied his postconviction motion to suppress evidence. The basis for Roberts’ motion was that the evidence was fruit of a stop that an Illinois court had previously found to be illegal.
Specifically, Roberts argues: that the State waived the issue of the validity of the initial stop and that waiver was legally binding on the circuit court, the circuit court switched the burden of proof on the constitutional validity of the stop from the State to the defendant, the circuit court prejudged the facts before the hearing on the motion, the circuit court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous, the police officer did not have a legally valid reason for the stop, the Illinois police officer admitted that the information on which he acted to stop Roberts was unreliable and hence his reason for the stop was invalidated, the search of Roberts’ home was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal stop, and the court should have suppressed the evidence. We conclude that the Wisconsin circuit court had the authority to independently decide the suppression issue, and that the court properly determined that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop Roberts’ car. We affirm the judgment and order. This opinion will not be published.
2009AP1655-CR State v. Roberts
Dist II, Kenosha County, Schroeder, J., Per Curiam
Attorneys: For Appellant: Henak, Robert R., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Zapf, Robert D., Kenosha; Neuser, Mark, Madison