State v. Kenneth M. Asboth, Jr., 898 N.W.2d 541

Background

In Nov. 2012 Kenneth Asboth was arrested at a private storage facility on an outstanding probation warrant and as a suspect in an armed bank robbery; his car remained at the scene.
The car blocked access to at least one storage unit and impeded access to others, though testimony indicated vehicles could still maneuver around it.
Registration check listed a different person as owner (later revealed the owner had sold the car to Asboth but the transfer was not recorded).
Officers impounded the car (towed it to the Beaver Dam police station) and performed an inventory search under department procedures, recovering items including a pellet gun.
Asboth moved to suppress evidence from the seizure/search; the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review of whether the impoundment was a bona fide community-caretaker seizure and whether Colorado v. Bertine requires standard criteria for impoundments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Asboth)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether officers' warrantless seizure of the car was a bona fide community-caretaker act	Seizure was pretextual for investigation; no objectively reasonable caretaking basis to tow from private storage lot	Car impeded use of private property, risk of abandonment/vandalism, unknown ownership — officers had an objectively reasonable caretaking purpose	Court: Officers had an objectively reasonable bona fide community-caretaker purpose (removing obstruction, protecting property, addressing uncertain ownership)
Whether the public interest outweighed Asboth's privacy interest (reasonableness of seizure)	Public interest did not outweigh privacy; alternatives existed and the car was not truly obstructing traffic	Public interest in abating nuisance, protecting property, and lack of feasible alternatives justified impoundment; car is an automobile (reduced expectation of privacy)	Court: Balancing factors favored the public interest; seizure was reasonable under Fourth Amendment
Whether Colorado v. Bertine requires impoundments to be governed by standardized criteria	Bertine requires adherence to standard criteria to cabin officer discretion; absence renders impoundment unconstitutional	Bertine does not mandate standardized criteria; reasonableness is the controlling inquiry, though standard procedures are a relevant factor	Court: Bertine does not impose a per se requirement of standardized criteria or adherence; absence of standards is not dispositive, but such criteria are a relevant factor
Whether failure to follow departmental impoundment procedures (if any) invalidates seizure	Noncompliance with or lack of meaningful policies shows arbitrary discretion and supports suppression	Officers complied with Beaver Dam and Dodge County policies in this case; compliance supports reasonableness	Court: Compliance with department policies here supports reasonableness; but even if no standards existed, seizure could be reasonable under the community-caretaker test

Key Cases Cited

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (recognizes routine police impoundments for traffic flow and public safety in community-caretaker context)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory-search analysis stating discretion must be exercised according to standard criteria and not for investigatory purposes)
United States v. Coccia, 446 F.3d 233 (1st Cir. 2006) (treats standardized procedures as a strong but non-dispositive factor in impoundment reasonableness)
United States v. Sanders, 796 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2015) (holds impoundment from private property that does not obstruct traffic is constitutional only if supported by standardized policy and non-pretextual caretaking rationale)
State v. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414 (2009) (Wisconsin three-step community-caretaker test and requirement of objectively reasonable basis)
State v. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346 (2010) (describes community-caretaker exception and its limits under Wisconsin law)
State v. Matalonis, 366 Wis. 2d 443 (2016) (standard of review for suppression and restatement of community-caretaker framework)