State v. Derik J. Wantland
848 N.W.2d 810
Wis.2014Background
- Deputy Brockway stopped a vehicle for a cracked windshield and defective brake light; Wantland was a front-seat passenger while his brother, the driver, held the wheel.
- Driver freely consented to search the vehicle; Wantland, as a passenger, contends the consent may have been limited or withdrew after his own question.
- A back hatch contained a briefcase; Wantland asked, “Got a warrant for that?” during the search.
- Deputy Brockway opened the briefcase and identified contents as a laptop, Visine, and other items; morphine pills were found.
- A second officer confirmed morphine; a search incident to arrest yielded two more morphine pills on Wantland.
- Wantland pled no contest; suppression motion denied; court of appeals affirmed; Wantland sought review, which this court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wantland withdraw the driver’s consent by asking for a warrant? | Wantland (Wantland) contends the question revoked consent. | Wantland argues the question clearly limited consent. | No withdrawal; ambiguous question not unequivocal. |
| Does law enforcement have a duty to clarify ambiguous ownership statements? | Wantland asserts ambiguity necessitates follow-up inquiry. | State contends no duty to inquire when ambiguity arises. | Officers are not required to inquire in ambiguous cases. |
| Did the driver have apparent authority to consent to search the briefcase? | Wantland asserts the driver lacked authority over Wantland’s briefcase. | State argues driver had apparent authority over items in the vehicle. | Driver had apparent authority; briefcase within scope of consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (scope of consent to search containers within a vehicle)
- Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third-party consent with common authority over premises)
- United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2000) (no duty to inquire when third-party consent appears valid for search of containers)
- State v. Matejka, 241 Wis.2d 52, 621 N.W.2d 891 (2001) ( Wisconsin common authority over vehicle and containers; consent analysis)
- State v. Kieffer, 217 Wis.2d 531, 577 N.W.2d 352 (1998) (duty to inquire when authority over premises is doubtful)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (apparent authority standard for third-party consent)
- State v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (noncoercive encounter and voluntary consent)