Wisconsin § 968.24 - Temporary questioning without arrest.

§ 968.24. Temporary questioning without arrest.

After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped. 968.24 History History: 1993 a. 486 . 968.24 Annotation Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203 , 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981). 968.24 Annotation A defendant’s flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824 , 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989). 968.24 Annotation Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77 , 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990). 968.24 Annotation The Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the encounter is initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532 , 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990). 968.24 Annotation When a person’s activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673 , 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991). 968.24 Annotation A “showup” where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification, often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520 , 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0168 . 968.24 Annotation Detaining a person at the person’s home, then transporting the person about one mile to the scene of an accident in which the person was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440 , 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97-0695 . But see State v. Cundy, 2023 WI App 41 , 409 Wis. 2d 34 , 995 N.W.2d 266 , 22-0540 . 968.24 Annotation That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), stop does not automatically mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581 , 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2588 . 968.24 Annotation This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72 , 236 Wis. 2d 48 , 613 N.W.2d 72 , 98-0931 . 968.24 Annotation A police officer performing a Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175 , 238 Wis. 2d 203 , 617 N.W.2d 210 , 99-1686 . 968.24 Annotation Under Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266 (2000), an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster’s anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21 , 241 Wis. 2d 631 , 623 N.W.2d 106 , 96-1821 . 968.24 Annotation An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when: 1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22 , 241 Wis. 2d 729 , 623 N.W.2d 516 , 98-3541 . 968.24 Annotation When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing the caller’s anonymity at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop. Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information, risked that the caller’s identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182 , 247 Wis. 2d 443 , 634 N.W.2d 877 , 00-2614 . 968.24 Annotation It was reasonable to conduct a Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), search of a person who knocked on the door of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17 , 250 Wis. 2d 296 , 640 N.W.2d 551 , 01-0549 . 968.24 Annotation Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer’s seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41 , 250 Wis. 2d 768 , 641 N.W.2d 474 , 01-0904 . 968.24 Annotation To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer’s belief that the officer’s or another’s safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places the individual’s hands in the individual’s pockets contrary to police orders. The individual’s hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15 , 269 Wis. 2d 1 , 675 N.W.2d 449 , 02-1540 . 968.24 Annotation Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60 , 301 Wis. 2d 1 , 733 N.W.2d 634 , 05-2778 . 968.24 Annotation The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77 , 312 Wis. 2d 174 , 751 N.W.2d 877 , 07-1578 . 968.24 Annotation When a person who is temporarily detained for investigation pursuant to a Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), stop is then moved to another location, courts conduct a two-part inquiry: 1) was the person moved within the vicinity of the stop; and 2) was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable? Ten miles is too distant a transportation to be within the vicinity so long as the temporary detention is supported by no more than a reasonable suspicion. In order for the transporting of a defendant to a hospital that was not in the vicinity of the stop to have been lawful, it must have been supported by probable cause to arrest or by a reasonable exercise of the community caretaker function. State v. Blatterman, 2015 WI 46 , 362 Wis. 2d 138 , 864 N.W.2d 26 , 13-2107 . 968.24 Annotation Although this section and s. 345.22 pertain only to crimes and violations of traffic regulations, neither statute forecloses traffic stops to enforce non-traffic civil forfeiture offenses. State v. Iverson, 2015 WI 101 , 365 Wis. 2d 302 , 871 N.W.2d 661 , 14-0515 . 968.24 Annotation The statement in Popke , 2009 WI 37 , that a police officer may conduct a traffic stop when, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer has grounds to reasonably suspect that a crime or traffic violation has been or will be committed, did not purport to circumscribe the universe of possible scenarios within which traffic stops permissibly may occur, or to make such limits contingent on whether the legislature has titled a particular law a “traffic regulation.” A reasonable suspicion that a violation of the littering statute, s. 287.81, a non-traffic civil forfeiture offense, had occurred justified a brief and limited traffic stop. The more onerous standard of probable cause would also therefore justify a traffic stop. State v. Iverson, 2015 WI 101 , 365 Wis. 2d 302 , 871 N.W.2d 661 , 14-0515 . 968.24 Annotation The principles of Terry , 392 U.S. 1 (1968), permit a state to require a suspect to disclose the suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 , 124 S. Ct. 2451 , 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004). 968.24 Annotation When the defendant’s refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person’s name when the police officer reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self-incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 , 124 S. Ct. 2451 , 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004). 968.24 Annotation Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Anderegg. Wis. Law. June 2005. 968.24 Note NOTE: See also the notes to article I, section 11 , of the Wisconsin Constitution.