State v. Roy S. Anderson, 935 N.W.2d 285

Background:

Officer Seeger received two tips within ~2.5 weeks from a confidential informant that Anderson was selling cocaine in a back alley behind a specific address.
On Aug. 25, 2015 Seeger saw Anderson ride a bicycle, commit a municipal violation, turn into the alley identified by the tip, look back repeatedly, and put his hand into his pocket.
Seeger knew Anderson from a 2012 arrest for possession with intent to deliver and ran a records check showing Anderson was released to community supervision on March 17, 2015.
Seeger stopped and conducted a warrantless search under 2013 Wis. Act 79; the search uncovered two baggies of crack cocaine, over $200 in cash, and two cell phones.
Anderson moved to suppress on the ground there was no reasonable suspicion to justify an Act 79 search and that the officer lacked knowledge of his Act 79 status; the circuit court and court of appeals denied relief.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed: (1) the circuit court’s factual finding that Seeger knew Anderson’s supervision status was not clearly erroneous; (2) the corroborated informant tips could be weighed; and (3) the totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Officer knowledge of Act 79 status (threshold)	State: Seeger knew Anderson had been released to supervision (record check + prior arrest).	Anderson: Seeger did not actually know Anderson was on a covered supervision status at the time of the search.	Held: Circuit court’s finding that Seeger knew Anderson was on supervision is not clearly erroneous; knowledge established.
Use of unnamed/confidential informant tips	State: Tips were from a reliable confidential informant and corroborated by location and defendant’s conduct.	Anderson: Tips lack indicia of veracity or basis of knowledge and should be excluded.	Held: Tips need not be excluded; because they were corroborated they may be considered and weighed for reliability.
Whether facts amounted to reasonable suspicion to justify an Act 79 search	State: Corroborated tips + prior arrest + presence in high drug area + evasive behavior gave reasonable suspicion.	Anderson: The individual facts (lawful conduct, pocket reach, recognition of police) were too common and insufficient, like Gordon.	Held: Under the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot; search lawful under Act 79.
Whether an officer-knowledge threshold is required by statute or the Fourth Amendment	State: Not directly contested below; law permits Act 79 searches when officer reasonably suspects criminal activity.	Anderson: Implied challenge that officers must know supervision status before invoking Act 79.	Held: Court did not decide a categorical officer-knowledge rule; concurrence flagged the issue for future cases but agreed result stands here because Seeger knew the status.

Key Cases Cited

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (describes the particularized, objective reasonable-suspicion standard)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes investigatory stop/protective search framework)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolees have diminished privacy; supports suspicionless searches in some contexts)
State v. Marquardt, 286 Wis. 2d 204 (probable cause generally required for full searches)
State v. Rutzinski, 241 Wis. 2d 729 (framework for assessing informant-tip reliability)
State v. Post, 301 Wis. 2d 1 (reasonable-suspicion totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51 (lawful conduct can support reasonable inferences of criminal activity)
State v. Rowan, 341 Wis. 2d 281 (applies diminished privacy rationale to extended supervision)