Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

4th Amendment Violation

By: Derek Hawkins//June 5, 2019//

4th Amendment Violation

By: Derek Hawkins//June 5, 2019//

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. John Patrick Wright

Case No.: 2019 WI 45

Focus: 4th Amendment Violation

This is a review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals affirming an order of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Hannah Dugan, Judge, granting John Patrick Wright’s motion to suppress evidence. The appeal was decided by one judge, Joan F. Kessler, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(f) (2015-16). John Patrick Wright, the defendant, was charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.23(2). The weapon was discovered in Wright’s vehicle’s glove compartment during a traffic stop. Wright did not hold a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, commonly referred to as a CCW permit.

Wright filed a motion to suppress the evidence. Wright admitted that the traffic stop was lawfully initiated because it was supported by reasonable suspicion that Wright was violating the traffic code. Wright argued, however, that the police violated the Fourth Amendment by taking three actions unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity: (1) the police asked Wright whether he had a weapon in the vehicle; (2) the police asked Wright whether he held a permit to carry a concealed weapon; and (3) the police verified whether Wright in fact had a valid CCW permit (a CCW permit check).

The case presents three Fourth Amendment issues: (1) in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, may an officer ask a lawfully stopped motorist about the presence of weapons; (2) in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, may an officer ask a lawfully stopped motorist whether the motorist holds a CCW permit; and (3) in the absence of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, may an officer conduct a CCW permit check. We conclude that, in the instant case, none of the officer’s questions or actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

We conclude that Wright’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the officer asked Wright about the presence of weapons in the vehicle. As this court stated in State v. Floyd, 2017 WI 78, ¶28 377 Wis. 2d 394, 898 N.W.2d 560, questioning a lawfully stopped motorist about the presence of weapons relates to officer safety and is negligibly burdensome. The question is part of the traffic stop’s mission.

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals, vacate the circuit court’s order granting Wright’s motion to suppress, and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded

Concur:

Dissent:

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

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