County of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogt, 850 N.W.2d 253

Deputy Small observed Vogt's vehicle in a closed park area at 1:00 a.m. near a boat landing and approached after parking behind Vogt's car.
Vogt was in the driver's seat with Russell in the passenger seat; Vogt's car was running with lights on; Deputy Small rapped on the window and directed Vogt to roll down the window.
Vogt's speech was slurred and Deputy Small smelled intoxicants, leading to a field sobriety test and Vogt's arrest for OWI with PAC .19.
Vogt moved to suppress evidence arguing no reasonable suspicion existed to justify a stop; circuit court denied suppression; court of appeals reversed.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether the window-knock constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court held that a knock on a vehicle window, without more, does not by itself constitute a seizure; seizure only occurs when the totality of circumstances indicates the driver is not free to leave, later shown after Vogt rolled down the window.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the knock on the window constitutes a seizure	Vogt	Vogt	Not a seizure before Vogt rolled down the window
Whether the officer’s conduct amounted to a show of authority under Mendenhall	State	Vogt	No seizure absent coercive restraint; totality of circumstances did not show not-free-to-leave before window opened
Does Wisconsin’s community-caretaking doctrine justify seizure or justify officer contact	State	Vogt	Not applicable; seizure did not occur; community caretaker analysis favors officer's contact as permissible inquiry
Impact of Wis. Stat. § 346.04 on exit from parking lot	State	Vogt	Not applicable; § 346.04 applies to highways, not parking lots

Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (seizure occurs if reasonable person not free to leave under totality of circumstances)
Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (police questioning alone unlikely to violate Fourth Amendment; no seizure unless conditions are intimidating)
Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626 (2003) (confirms Mendenhall framework for seizures)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (recognizes objective, not subjective, seizure analysis)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (distinguishes mere police approach from seizure)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (guides seizure analysis with objective framing)
State v. Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1 (2002) (Wisconsin adoption of Mendenhall/seizure framework)
State v. Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243 (1996) (distinguishes seizure by blocking moving vehicle vs. non-seizure encounter)
State v. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414 (2009) (community caretaker function factors governing warrantless action)
State v. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346 (2010) (recognizes community caretaker exception; requires objective basis)
State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203 (1981) (police assistance to motorists as a permissible function)
State v. Randle, P.3d 732 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012) (no seizure where officer knocked on window behind vehicle with exit possible)
State v. Steffes, N.W.2d 633 (2010) (non-seizure where officer knock did not display coercive authority)