The upshot is that the state Supreme Court, in State v Michael Gene Wiskowski, rejected the state's really weak community caretaker argument used to make a traffic stop that led to an improperly extended stop and ended with a drunk driving arrest.
See an earlier post here for more background.
Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote the 6-1 decision (sort of) for the Supremes. The police simply lacked a basis to make and prolong the stop, he said.
"While reasonable suspicion doesn't demand much, it does demand more than a hunch," Hagedorn wrote. "And that is all we see here."
The six justices who signed on to the opinion clearly were not all in agreement on all points, however. Here's the breakdown, as reported in the decision.
HAGEDORN, J., delivered the majority opinion of the Court, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, DALLET, KAROFSKY, and PROTASIEWICZ, JJ., joined. HAGEDORN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., joined with respect to ¶¶39-75, and PROTASIEWICZ, J., joined with respect to ¶¶72 and 74-75. PROTASIEWICZ, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., joined. ZIEGLER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion.
More on this once I wade through it all.
Comments