State v. Clark
Citation | 265 Wis.2d 557,666 N.W.2d 112,2003 WI App 121 |
Decision Date | 20 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-2195-CR.,02-2195-CR. |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Timothy T. CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Rodney L. Cubbie of Cubbie & Pepper, Ltd., of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general, and Stephen W. Kleinmaier, assistant attorney general.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ.
¶ 1.
Timothy T. Clark appeals from the judgment of conviction entered after he pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(1m)(cm)5 (2001-02).1 Clark contends that the circuit court erred in denying his suppression motion because the vehicle he was driving was searched in violation of his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Because towing the vehicle under the circumstances presented here was not a proper exercise of the police department's community caretaker function, we conclude that the subsequent inventory search constituted a violation of Clark's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. IV; WIS. CONST. art. 1, § 11. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's decision denying Clark's suppression motion and remand the matter to the circuit court.
¶ 2. On September 26, 2001, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Milwaukee police officers responded to a report of shots fired and a possible attempted robbery in the 400 block of North 39th Street. At the scene, Detective Richard McKee interviewed an individual named Eugene Stadler, who told Detective McKee that he had observed the incident.2
¶ 3. Stadler stated that earlier in the day, "his cousin Tim" had come to visit him at his house located at 430 North 39th Street.3 Stadler did not know Clark's address or telephone number. Stadler stated that Clark was driving a gray Ford Taurus station wagon when he arrived at his house. He also informed Detective McKee that as Clark left the residence, he was approached by a man holding a handgun, who ordered him to "drop it." Stadler said that Clark then fled on foot and ran into a gangway. As Clark ran away, the man fired a number of shots in his direction.
¶ 4. The police found a spent shell casing in the street within ten yards of a parked gray Ford Taurus automobile. They also discovered another spent shell casing in a gangway approximately seventy-five yards from the vehicle. When Detective McKee checked the Taurus's registration, he discovered that it was jointly registered to Pamela Johnson and Christine VanMun who resided in the 9000 block of North 95th Street. Although the detective observed that the Taurus was undamaged and legally parked, because the vehicle was unlocked, Detective McKee decided to have it towed to the police department's impound lot for safekeeping. Before the car was towed, the detective conducted a search and discovered a backpack containing a pair of jeans and cocaine. ¶ 5. On September 28, 2001, Clark was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. On November 12, 2001, Clark filed a suppression motion challenging the search of the vehicle. When asked at the suppression hearing why he decided to tow the vehicle, Detective McKee testified:
I had an unsecured vehicle there, and no idea who was — the owner/operator was, or how to get ahold [sic] of them other than the listing. But Mr. Sadler said that [it] was Tim's car. In my experience, vehicles are so frequently changing hands without the registration being changed over that the most prudent decision would be to tow it for safekeeping.
¶ 6. While testifying, the detective was referred to the Milwaukee Police Department's "safekeeping tow" policy, which states in relevant part:
After reviewing the policy, Detective McKee concluded that Clark's vehicle was towed pursuant to subsection one of the policy.
¶ 7. When asked at the suppression hearing why he did not simply lock the vehicle and leave it legally parked on the street, Detective McKee responded: However, on cross-examination, Detective McKee conceded that there was no written Milwaukee Police Department policy supporting his conclusion that he could not simply lock the vehicle and walk away:
¶ 8. Before ordering the vehicle towed, Detective McKee never attempted to contact the registered owners of the Taurus. At the suppression hearing, the detective stated that he did not attempt to call them because he was "not equipped with a cell phone out there on the street" and "was not able to make such a call." Detective McKee, however, admitted that he did not even attempt to radio the police department to ask someone there to contact the registered owners of the vehicle.
¶ 9. On December 6, 2001, the circuit court denied Clark's suppression motion. On February 4, 2002, Clark entered a guilty plea, and on April 3, 2002, he was sentenced to ten years of initial confinement followed by seven years of extended supervision.
[1, 2]
¶ 10. "On review of a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we will uphold the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous." State v. Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, ¶ 7, 248 Wis. 2d 61, 635 N.W.2d 615 (citing WIS. STAT. § 805.17(2) (1999-2000) and State v. Williamson, 113 Wis. 2d 389, 401, 335 N.W.2d 814 (1983)). "Whether a search is valid, however, is a question of constitutional law which we review de novo." Id. (citing State v. Guzman, 166 Wis. 2d 577, 586, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992)). [3-5]
¶ 11. Here, the State contends that the search of the vehicle was a valid inventory search. "Although an inventory search is a `search' within the meaning of the [F]ourth [A]mendment, it is also a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Weber, 163 Wis. 2d 116, 132, 471 N.W.2d 187 (1991) (citations omitted). An analysis of an inventory search involves a two-step process: (1) analysis of the reasonableness of the seizure of the car in the first instance; and (2) analysis of the reasonableness of the inventory search. See id. at 133. Clark challenges the first step and argues that the police had no right to tow the vehicle.
¶ 12. The State makes much of the written "safekeeping tow" policy, as well as the unwritten "unsecured vehicle" policy. The State cites Thompson v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 134, 265 N.W.2d 467 (1978), for the proposition that the seizure of the car was reasonable and permissible. The Thompson court stated: "The United States Supreme Court has held that inventory searches pursuant to `Standard police procedures' are reasonable and permissible." Id. at 139-40; see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 373
(). The State, however, has applied the reasoning of Thompson to the wrong step of the inventory search analysis — both Thompson and Opperman deal with the reasonableness of the inventory search; i.e., was the decision to conduct an inventory search made pursuant to standard police operating procedures? See Thompson, 83 Wis. 2d at 140-41 ( ); Opperman, 428 U.S. at 372 ( ). These cases, however, do not deal with the reasonableness of the seizure of the vehicle in the first instance; i.e., was the decision to impound and tow the vehicle reasonable?
¶ 13. Moreover, the Opperman court explicitly stated that each search must be independently evaluated applying the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Asboth
...inventory search according to established procedures."¶8 Asboth filed a motion for reconsideration. Relying on State v. Clark , 2003 WI App 121, 265 Wis.2d 557, 666 N.W.2d 112, Asboth argued that the officers unconstitutionally seized the car from the storage facility. Following a hearing a......
-
State v. Kramer
...this factor weighs in favor of a conclusion that the public interest is outweighed in this case. In support, Kramer relies on State v. Clark, 2003 WI App 121, ¶ 27, 265 Wis.2d 557, 666 N.W.2d 112, where we stated that a citizen can reasonably expect to leave a vehicle legally parked without......
-
State v. Brooks
...the deputies were acting as community caretakers when they impounded Mr. Brooks' vehicle. On the other hand, State v. Clark, 2003 WI App 121, 265 Wis. 2d 557, 666 N.W.2d 112, provides a closer analogy and more helpfully illuminates the limitations of the community caretaker doctrine in the ......
-
State v. Asboth, 2015AP2052–CR.
...police as "caretakers" of the streets. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 370, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976) ; State v. Clark, 2003 WI App 121, ¶ 20, 265 Wis.2d 557, 666 N.W.2d 112. More specifically, Opperman describes common situations in which police may reasonably seize......
-
Motor vehicle searches
...a caretaking function. Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 (1987). Some state courts have differed on this point. In State v. Clark , 666 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. App. 2003), the court held that towing a car was not a true caretaking function where the car was not involved in an accident; not interr......
-
Motor vehicle searches
...function. Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 (1987). However, some state courts have differed on this point. In State v. Clark , 666 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. App. 2003), the court held that towing a car was not a true caretaking function where the car was not involved in an accident; not interrupti......
-
Motor Vehicle Searches
...function. Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 (1987). However, some state courts have differed on this point. In State v. Clark , 666 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. App. 2003), the court held that towing a car was not a true caretaking function where the car was not involved in an accident; not interrupti......
-
Motor Vehicle Searches
...function. Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 (1987). However, some state courts have di൵ered on this point. In State v. Clark , 666 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. App. 2003), the court held that towing a car was not a true caretaking function where the car was not involved in an accident; not interruptin......