Motion to Suppress – Warrantless Search

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Roy S. Anderson

Case No.: 2019 WI 97

Focus: Motion to Suppress – Warrantless Search

The petitioner, Roy S. Anderson (“Anderson”), seeks review of an unpublished, per curiam decision of the court of appeals affirming both his judgment of conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He asserts that the court of appeals erred in determining that law enforcement’s search of his person pursuant to 2013 Wisconsin Act 79 (“Act 79”) was valid. Act 79 allows law enforcement to search a person on a specified probation, parole, or extended supervision status without consent or a warrant if the officer reasonably suspects that the person is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime. Generally, a full search cannot be accomplished absent probable cause.3 However, if a person is subject to Act 79, a full search may be conducted on the lesser showing of reasonable suspicion.

Anderson specifically contends that the arresting officer who searched him did not know that he was on supervision. Absent such knowledge, the officer could not have appreciated that Anderson was subject to search based on Act 79’s reduced protections before conducting a warrantless search. He argues next that even if the officer had knowledge of his supervision status, the search was still illegal. Anderson contends that under the totality of the circumstances, the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that Anderson was committing, was about to commit, or had committed a crime. As part of this argument, he asserts that tips received from an unnamed informant lacked any indicia of reliability and should be discarded completely from our analysis of the totality of the circumstances.

We conclude that the circuit court’s finding of fact that the officer in this case had knowledge of Anderson’s supervision status prior to conducting the warrantless search at issue is not clearly erroneous. Next, we determine that the corroborated tips of the unnamed informant in this case may be considered in our analysis of the totality of the circumstances, giving them such weight as they are due. Finally, we conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion that Anderson was committing, was about to commit, or had committed a crime. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur: HAGEDORN, J. concurs, joined by ZIEGLER, J. (opinion filed)
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.