State v. Wantland
2013 WI App 36
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wantland appeals a conviction and denial of a motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search of a briefcase found in a vehicle during a traffic stop.
- The deputy conducted a warrantless search under the driver’s consent and reached the briefcase; Wantland questioned with 'Got a warrant for that?' which he argues limited the consent.
- The driver (Wantland’s brother) had consented to search the vehicle and the search proceeded to the briefcase.
- Wantland was present and interacted as the deputy examined the briefcase; morphine was later found inside and linked to Wantland.
- The circuit court found the driver’s consent valid and that Wantland did not clearly and unequivocally limit that consent; on appeal, the question is whether the search of the briefcase was reasonable under the totality of circumstances.
- The court affirmed, holding the deputy’s briefcase search was reasonable and not limited by Wantland’s warrant-related question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wantland effectively limit the driver's search consent by his warrant question? | Wantland | State | No; no clear, unequivocal ownership/objecting statement by Wantland shown. |
| Was it reasonable for the deputy to continue the search without clarification when confronted by Wantland's question? | Wantland | State | Yes; ambiguity did not require stopping; totality of circumstances supports reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (consent and scope assessed by totality of circumstances)
- State v. Matejka, 241 Wis. 2d 52 (WI 2001) (reasonableness of search where casual ambiguity exists)
- State v. Wallace, 251 Wis. 2d 625 (WI App 2002) (review of consent scope as fact-finding; de novo for reasonableness)
- United States v. West, 321 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2003) (passenger's acknowledgement without explicit revocation may indicate consent)
- United States v. Gregoire, 425 F.3d 872 (10th Cir. 2005) (contextual consideration of ownership and consent)
- Payton v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 468 (Ky. 2010) (revocation of third-party consent requires clear indication)
- United States v. Sanders, 424 F.3d 768 (8th Cir. 2005) (withdrawal of consent requires unequivocal act or statement)