State v. Frederick S. Smith, 2015AP000756-CR

Background

On April 6, 2014 Sgt. Bernard Gonzalez stopped a car after running its plate in a high‑risk neighborhood; the registered owner’s license was suspended. The car later pulled into a parking lot.
As Gonzalez neared the driver’s door he realized the driver was a man (not the female registered owner), and the State concedes reasonable suspicion for the original basis of the stop had dissipated at that moment.
The driver (Frederick Smith) told the officer the driver’s door and window were broken and began to move toward the passenger side; Gonzalez walked to the passenger side, put his hand on the handle, and the door was opened (officer testified they opened it together).
Once the passenger door was open Gonzalez observed signs of intoxication, asked for Smith’s license, learned it was revoked, conducted sobriety testing, and arrested Smith; an evidentiary breath test later showed .38 BAC.
Smith moved to suppress evidence, arguing (1) the stop was unlawfully extended because reasonable suspicion evaporated before the officer requested ID, and (2) opening the passenger door was an unlawful search. The circuit court denied suppression; the court of appeals vacated the conviction on procedural grounds; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether an officer may request a driver’s license as part of an otherwise lawful traffic stop when the reasonable suspicion that justified the stop dissipated while the officer approached the vehicle	The ordinary inquiries (including checking ID) are part of a traffic stop’s mission per Rodriguez; an officer may complete those inquiries even if the factor that generated reasonable suspicion vanishes during approach (so long as inquiries are done diligently and within a reasonable time)	Once reasonable suspicion evaporated when the officer saw a male driver, the seizure had to end and asking for ID unlawfully prolonged the stop	The Court held law enforcement may perform ordinary inquiries (e.g., request license) as part of the traffic‑stop mission even if the particular reasonable suspicion dissipates while the officer is approaching, provided the inquiries are reasonably related to the stop and completed without undue delay.
Whether the officer’s opening of the passenger door (when the driver said the driver’s door/window were broken) constituted an unreasonable search requiring separate justification	Opening the passenger door to obtain safe, face‑to‑face communication and to effectuate ordinary inquiries was objectively reasonable and de minimis under Mimms and Terry; the officer reasonably inferred Smith was cooperating and attempting to move to the passenger side	Opening the door without a warrant or consent invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy once reasonable suspicion had dissipated and was not the least intrusive means; Mimms does not permit opening a door absent a verbal order to exit	The Court held opening the passenger door under the circumstances was a reasonable, minimal intrusion and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Key Cases Cited

Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic‑stop "mission" includes ordinary inquiries such as checking driver’s license; stop may not be extended beyond time reasonably required to complete mission)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (two‑part reasonableness inquiry for investigative stops and permissible scope of intrusion)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officer may order driver out of vehicle during lawful stop; limited additional intrusion justified by officer safety)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (duration of a stop may be justified by traffic offense and ordinary inquiries incident to the stop)
State v. Williams, 258 Wis. 2d 395 (Ct. App. 2002) (when an initial detention is lawful, officer may ask for name/ID even after concluding the driver is not the suspect)
State v. Newer, 306 Wis. 2d 193 (Ct. App. 2007) (knowledge that registered owner has invalid license can supply reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle)
State v. Gammons, 241 Wis. 2d 296 (Ct. App. 2001) (purpose of a stop concludes after the necessary tasks—ID checks and computer queries—are completed)
People v. Cummings, 46 N.E.3d 248 (Ill. 2016) (on remand after Rodriguez: Illinois Supreme Court held checking a driver’s license was permissible even after reasonable suspicion dissipated)