State v. Alfonso Lorenzo Brooks, 944 N.W.2d 832

Brooks was stopped for speeding; deputies discovered his driver's license was suspended and that he was a convicted felon. He was cited but not arrested.
Brooks was the sole occupant; deputies said department policy required towing because no licensed driver was present; Brooks asked that his girlfriend (the registered owner) retrieve the car and was denied.
Deputy Thompson began a warrantless inventory search preparatory to towing; officers found a firearm in the trunk and arrested Brooks for being a felon in possession.
Brooks moved to suppress the firearm as the product of an unlawful seizure and inventory search; the circuit court denied suppression, Brooks pleaded guilty, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the post-stop seizure was justified by the community caretaker exception and held the deputies were not bona fide community caretakers, so the seizure and inventory search were unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brooks)	Held
Whether the post-stop seizure/tow was a permissible community-caretaker seizure	Officers acted as community caretakers: risk of theft/vandalism, car not registered to Brooks, and potential traffic impediment justified tow	No bona fide caretaking need: Brooks was not arrested, could have waited or arranged retrieval, and car was not shown to impede traffic	Court: Not a community-caretaker seizure; deputies lacked objectively reasonable basis to impound
Whether the subsequent warrantless inventory search was constitutional	Inventory search is lawful when incident to a valid caretaking impound and follows department policy	Inventory search is derivative of unlawful seizure and thus unconstitutional	Court: Inventory search invalid because the underlying seizure was unconstitutional
Whether compliance with internal towing policy proves caretaking authority	Policy compliance supports reasonableness	Department policy alone cannot establish the predicate caretaking function; State bears burden to prove necessity	Court: Policy compliance is not dispositive; State failed to prove caretaking necessity
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not introducing policy/evidence of lawful parking (alternative argument)	—	Counsel erred by not introducing the department policy and parking-evidence	Court: Did not reach ineffectiveness claim because suppression required; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion

State v. Asboth, 376 Wis. 2d 644 (2017) (upholding impound where driver was arrested and vehicle would be indefinitely unattended)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (police may remove/impound vehicles that impede traffic or jeopardize public safety; inventory searches are a recognized exception)
State v. Clark, 265 Wis. 2d 557 (Ct. App. 2003) (rejecting caretaking justification for impound where vehicle was legally parked, undamaged, and posed no public-safety concern)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic stop may last no longer than necessary to effectuate its purpose)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrant requirement subject to certain exceptions when conduct is reasonable)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (community-caretaker doctrine requires actions be totally divorced from criminal investigation)
State v. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414 (2009) (articulates multi-step test for community-caretaker exception and objective-basis standard)