Wisconsin Court: Man’s Fourth Amendment rights violated

Listen to this article

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled June 19, a Plymouth, Wis. police officer violated a man’s Fourth Amendment rights during a September 2019 traffic stop and that evidence collected during the stop would be inadmissible in court.

According to court records, a Plymouth Police Department officer pulled Michael Wiskowski over after he fell asleep in a McDonald’s drive-thru and was awakened by employees. The restaurant contacted the police. Officer Devin Simon was close by and watched a truck matching the description pull out of the drive-thru and make a proper turn. The officer then pulled Wiskowski over, explaining his unexpected nap while working a 24-hour shift.

Although Simon did not notice any signs of impairment or criminality, he prolonged the stop to determine whether he had grounds to investigate further. The officer eventually ordered the defendant out of his truck, at which point Wiskowski showed signs of intoxication, leading to an arrest and operating a vehicle while under the influence charges.

The Sheboygan County Circuit Court denied Wiskowski’s motion to suppress evidence collected during the stop saying it was justified as a permissible “community caretaking function.” The decision was appealed with the Court of Appeals affirming the decision. The Supreme Court concluded, however, the extended traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and violated Wiskowski’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.

“Furthermore, assuming without deciding the traffic stop was permissible as a bona fide community caretaking activity, we hold that the stop was prolonged unreasonably when it transformed into an unjustified criminal investigation,” the Court wrote. “The scope of caretaking stops should be guided and limited by the justification for the stop. This means that, absent another permissible reason to detain someone, the detention must end when the original community caretaking justification is resolved.”

According to court documents, when the officer pulled Wiskowski over, he did not notice any odd behavior but asked for his license and insurance card. He returned to his vehicle and a second officer arrived at the scene. At that point, Simon shared what Wiskowski said about working for 24 hours and mentioned he wanted to have the defendant exit the truck. The other officer suggested Simon pull up Wiskowski’s driving record, which showed three previous OWIs.

The two officers continued to discuss whether there was “enough to take him out” of the truck and investigate further.  Simon ultimately decided to do so, citing Wiskowski’s reported sleepiness and “odd” behavior of handing him two insurance cards before correcting himself 20 seconds later and taking one back. In court, the officer testified he wanted Wiskowski to exit the vehicle to see if something was “going on that maybe [he] wasn’t seeing in the car” to determine if Wiskowski had been drinking. Approximately five to six minutes passed from the time Simon ended his initial conversation with the defendant and when he ordered him out of the truck.

Once Wiskowski exited his truck, the officer smelled alcohol for the first time and noticed him stumble. Simon asked how much he had to drink to which Wiskowski replied “a couple beers.” The officer took him back to the station to perform field sobriety tests. Based on his observations, Simon arrested Wiskowski. The state charged him with one count of operating a motor vehicle under the influence and one count of operating with prohibited alcohol concentration, both as fourth offenses.

Wiskowski moved to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop.  After an evidentiary hearing and briefing, the circuit court denied Wiskowski’s motion, finding Simon’s stop was justified as community caretaking activity. A year later, Wiskowski asked the court to hold another evidentiary hearing to consider bodycam footage that had not been presented to the court the first time around.  The court did so, construing it as a motion to reconsider.  The court once again denied Wiskowski’s motion to suppress, continuing to find that Simon “acted reasonably under the community caretaker function.”

Wiskowski eventually pled no contest to one count of operating a motor vehicle under the influence as a fourth offense.  He appealed the judgment of conviction, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  The court of appeals affirmed on the same community caretaking grounds.

The defendant argued the officer’s traffic stop was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Supreme Court agreed, saying the stop should have ended after Simon’s initial discussion with Wiskowski where he showed no signs of being under the influence and provided a reasonable explanation for falling asleep in the McDonald’s drive-thru.

The Court said while an investigatory stop is deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, “it does demand more than a hunch. And that is all we see here.” The Court added Wiskowski did not commit any traffic violations and no other clues suggesting he was operating his vehicle while intoxicated. “Midday drowsiness standing alone, without any other indicators of impairment, is simply not enough,” the Court concluded.

The Court sent the case back to Sheboygan County Circuit Court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction and grant the motion to suppress evidence collected during the traffic stop.