State v. Michael Gene Wiskowski, 7 N.W.3d 474

Background

Midday at a McDonald’s drive‑thru, an employee found Michael Wiskowski asleep behind the wheel and called police. Officer Devin Simon arrived within a minute and observed Wiskowski drive out of the lane and make lawful turns.
Simon then initiated a traffic stop despite seeing no traffic violations or obvious signs of impairment; Wiskowski pulled into a parking lot and answered questions.
During the initial contact Wiskowski said he had worked 24 hours; he appeared "normal," there was no odor of alcohol, and the only unusual act was handing the officer the wrong insurance card briefly.
After returning to his squad car and consulting another officer (and Wiskowski’s prior OWI history), Simon waited ~5–6 minutes, ordered Wiskowski out of the truck, then smelled alcohol and observed stumbling; Wiskowski admitted to drinking and was arrested.
Wiskowski moved to suppress; the circuit court and court of appeals upheld the seizure as community caretaking. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed: no reasonable suspicion for the stop, and even if the initial stop was a bona fide welfare check, the detention was unlawfully prolonged once the caretaking justification dissipated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wiskowski)	Held
1) Was the initial traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Falling asleep in a drive‑thru and the caller’s tip justified suspicion of impairment.	Falling asleep alone (midday) plus normal driving afterward is too speculative to support reasonable suspicion.	No — the Court held the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
2) Was the seizure permissible as a community caretaking (welfare) stop?	The stop was a bona fide welfare check to ensure a potentially incapacitated driver was safe.	The encounter was investigative in nature and not justified as a caretaking seizure.	The Court assumed arguendo the initial stop could be caretaking but did not rest the decision on that; analysis focused on prolongation.
3) If initial stop was caretaking, was the detention lawfully extended into an investigation?	Extension was reasonable to determine if impairment existed (officer had a hunch and knowledge of prior OWIs).	Caretaking justification ended after the initial interaction; prolonging the stop into a criminal investigation required independent reasonable suspicion, which did not exist.	Unlawful — the Court held the welfare‑check justification dissipated and the stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion.
4) Procedural: Could the State raise reasonable suspicion on review though it wasn’t argued below?	Rule 809.62(3m)(b)1 permits respondents to defend the result on any ground that wouldn’t change the outcome.	The State forfeited reasonable‑suspicion argument by not raising it in the circuit court.	The majority rejected using that rule to relax forfeiture; the Court nevertheless addressed reasonable suspicion because Wiskowski had preserved it. Concurring opinions discussed limits on raising new grounds on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (recognized noncriminal "community caretaking" functions in vehicle contexts)
Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2021) (limits on treating community caretaking as a standalone doctrine for warrantless home intrusions)
State v. Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414 (Wis. 2009) (adopted three‑step community caretaking framework and balancing factors)
State v. Pinkard, 327 Wis. 2d 346 (Wis. 2010) (applied community caretaking analysis, including home entries)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (traffic‑stop duration must be limited to the stop’s mission)
State v. Genous, 397 Wis. 2d 293 (Wis. 2021) (reasonable‑suspicion standard for investigatory stops)
Bies v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 457 (Wis. 1977) (early Wisconsin recognition of police caretaking activities)