926 N.W.2d 157
Wis.2019Background
- On June 15, 2016, Milwaukee officers stopped John Patrick Wright for a broken headlight; the stop was concededly supported by reasonable suspicion.
- Officer Sardina, at the driver-side window, asked for Wright’s license, whether he had any weapons in the car, and whether he held a CCW (concealed carry) permit.
- Wright said he had a firearm in the glove compartment and had recently completed CCW training; he consented to officers removing the firearm, which was loaded.
- While running Wright’s license and checks in the patrol car, Officer Sardina also ran a CCW permit check and learned Wright did not have a valid CCW permit; Wright was arrested and charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon.
- Wright moved to suppress the gun on Fourth Amendment grounds, arguing that (1) asking about weapons, (2) asking about a CCW permit, and (3) conducting a CCW permit check, were actions unsupported by reasonable suspicion that unlawfully extended the stop.
- The circuit court granted suppression based on Rodriguez; the court of appeals affirmed. The State appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wright) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an officer ask a lawfully stopped motorist about weapons absent reasonable suspicion? | Such questions are part of the stop’s mission (officer safety) and are negligibly burdensome. | The question extended the stop and required reasonable suspicion. | Allowed: asking about weapons is part of the mission; negligibly burdensome, so not a Fourth Amendment violation. |
| May an officer ask whether the motorist holds a CCW permit absent reasonable suspicion? | The question is de minimis and can be asked without extending the stop. | Asking about a CCW permit is unrelated to officer safety and unlawfully extends the stop. | Allowed: question is de minimis and did not measurably extend the stop in this case. |
| May an officer run a CCW permit check absent reasonable suspicion? | A CCW check can be done concurrently with mission tasks (e.g., running license) and therefore is permissible if it doesn’t extend the stop. | A permit check is an unrelated investigation into criminality and requires reasonable suspicion. | Allowed: the CCW check was run concurrently with mission-related database checks and did not measurably extend the stop. |
| Did the officer actions here violate the Fourth Amendment so as to require suppression? | No; weapons question, CCW question, and CCW check did not measurably extend the stop, so evidence admissible. | Yes; the unrelated CCW question and permit check unlawfully prolonged the detention, so evidence must be suppressed. | Held for State: Fourth Amendment not violated; suppression vacated; case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic-stop “mission” limits permissible inquiries; unrelated checks unlawful if they measurably extend the stop)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (unauthorized dog sniff during a stop is permissible if it does not extend the stop)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (officer may order driver out of vehicle incident to a traffic stop for officer safety)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (rule in Mimms extends to passengers)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (defines stop-and-frisk constitutional framework)
- State v. Floyd, 377 Wis. 2d 394 (2017) (questioning about weapons during a traffic stop relates to officer safety and is negligibly burdensome)