COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

September 26, 2019

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2019AP602 Cir. Ct. No. 2018SC1171

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

SAMUEL M. POLHAMUS,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V.

MICHAEL J. GEIER AND SHELLEY BOHL, CLERK OF MONROE COUNTY,

WI,

 DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Monroe County: 

STACY A. SMITH, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J.1 Samuel Polhamus, acting pro se, appeals a 

circuit court order dismissing his small claims complaint seeking reimbursement 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2017-18). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2019AP602

2

of the cost of retrieving his vehicle after it was towed and impounded. For the 

reasons stated, I affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Polhamus was arrested for certain drug-related offenses following a 

traffic stop on a state highway in Monroe County at approximately 3:00 a.m. on 

July 14, 2018. After the arrest, Monroe County Deputy Michael Geier ordered 

that Polhamus’ vehicle be towed and placed in an impoundment lot. Polhamus 

filed this small claims action alleging that Geier “had the vehicle towed with no 

legal authority” and seeking reimbursement of “the cost to remove his vehicle 

from the tow company’s impound.” The circuit court granted Geier’s motion for 

summary judgment and dismissed the action.2

DISCUSSION

¶3 This court reviews the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. Ewer v. Lake 

Arrowhead Ass’n, 2012 WI App 64, ¶12, 342 Wis. 2d 194, 817 N.W.2d 465. 

Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” WIS.

STAT. § 802.08(2).

¶4 The gravamen of Polhamus’ argument appears to be that Geier acted 

unlawfully when Geier ordered that Polhamus’ vehicle be towed and placed in an 

 

2

 In his complaint and his briefing, Polhamus makes no allegations or arguments relating 

to the Clerk of Monroe County. Accordingly, for ease of reading I refer to the defendantsrespondents, and to Geier individually, as Geier.
No. 2019AP602

3

impoundment lot after arresting Polhamus for drug offenses. However, Polhamus 

fails to explain how Geier’s order was unlawful. Accordingly, I reject Polhamus’ 

argument on that basis. Moreover, Polhamus fails to file a reply brief responding 

to Geier’s arguments why Geier acted lawfully when he ordered that Polhamus’

vehicle be towed and placed in an impoundment lot.3 Thus, I also deem 

Polhamus’ failure to reply as a concession that Geier’s arguments are correct. See

Fischer v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 2002 WI App 192, ¶1 n.1, 256 

Wis. 2d 848, 650 N.W.2d 75 (“An argument asserted by a respondent on appeal 

and not disputed by the appellant in the reply brief is taken as admitted.”).

¶5 I observe that most of Polhamus’ brief comprises assertions that 

Geier proceeded unlawfully in executing the stop and search of Polhamus’ vehicle

before Geier ordered the towing. From these assertions, it appears that Polhamus 

may be arguing that his allegedly unlawful arrest rendered the towing and 

impoundment order also unlawful. However, Polhamus fails to support his

assertions with citations to the record or to controlling legal authority. 

Consequently, as I explain, I do not consider those assertions further.4

¶6 Appropriate record citations are required by WIS. STAT. RULE 

809.19(1)(d)-(e). This rule applies even to a pro se litigant. See Waushara Cty. v. 

Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992) (“Pro se appellants must 

satisfy all procedural requirements, unless those requirements are waived by the 

 

3

 Geier cites an unpublished per curiam opinion of this court in violation of WIS. STAT. 

RULE 809.23(3). Future violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in sanctions. 

See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.83(2).

4

 Because Polhamus’ assertions that Geier acted unlawfully fail, I do not address the 

immunity issues raised in the parties’ briefing.
No. 2019AP602

4

court.”). This court has no duty to scour the record to review arguments 

unaccompanied by adequate record citation, Roy v. St. Lukes Med. Ctr., 2007 WI 

App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256, and may “choose not to 

consider ... arguments that lack proper citations to the record.” State v. 

McMorris, 2007 WI App 231, ¶30, 306 Wis. 2d 79, 742 N.W.2d 322. So here, I 

do not consider Polhamus’ assertions that are unsupported by citations to the 

record.

¶7 As for Polhamus’ legal citations, he first cites to this court’s 

certification of an appeal in State v. Brown, No. 2017AP774-CR, 2018 WL 

8188436 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court 

denied the certification petition, and Polhamus does not cite to this court’s 

subsequent opinion in which we ruled that the officer’s request that the defendant 

exit the car and consent to a frisk did not improperly extend the stop in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. State v. Brown, 2019 WI App 34, ¶¶ 16-17, 388 Wis. 2d

161, 931 N.W.2d 890. Polhamus next refers to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 

granting of the petition for review in State v. Wright, but does not cite to the 

Court’s subsequent opinion in that case, in which it ruled that the officer’s 

concealed weapon permit check did not improperly extend the stop in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. State v. Wright, 2019 WI 45, ¶49, 386 Wis. 2d 495, 926 

N.W.2d 157. Accordingly, I also decline to address whatever arguments 

Polhamus means to make based on his failure to cite supporting legal authority. 

See Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, 

¶25, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82 (“Arguments unsupported by legal authority 

will not be considered, and we will not abandon our neutrality to develop 

arguments.”).
No. 2019AP602

5

¶8 To the extent that Polhamus may intend to make other arguments 

that I do not directly address, I reject them on the grounds that they are 

inadequately briefed, see State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 

633 (Ct. App. 1992) (the court of appeals need not address the merits of 

inadequately developed arguments that do not conform to rules of appellate 

procedure), and lack discernable potential merit.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the reasons stated, I affirm.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE 

809.23(1)(b)4.