### 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 W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2019AP602 Cir. Ct. No. 2018SC1171 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV

S AMUEL M. P OLHAMUS ,
P LAINTIFF - A PPELLANT ,

V .
M ICHAEL J. G EIER AND S HELLEY B OHL , C LERK OF M ONROE C OUNTY , WI,

D EFENDANTS - R ESPONDENTS .

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 W IS

. S TAT

. § 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 Pol hamu s 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 gra nted Geier’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. 2

DISCUSSION

¶ 3 This court review s th e 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. ” W IS

. S TAT

. § 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 th e defendants

respondents , 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 o rder 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 impoundmen t 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 , 20 02 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
befo re 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 citation s to th e record or to controlling legal authority. Consequently, as I explain, I do not consider those assertions further. 4

¶ 6 A ppropriate record citations are required by W IS . S TAT . R ULE 809.19(1)(d)

- (e). This rule applies even to a pro se lit igant. 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 W IS . S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(3). F uture violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in sanctions. See W I S . S TAT . R ULE 809.83(2).

4 Because Po lhamus’ 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 argument s unaccompanied by adequate record citation, Roy v. St. Lukes Med. Ctr. , 200 7 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’ a ssertions that are unsupported by citations to the
record.

¶ 7 As for Polhamus’ legal citations, he first cites to this c ourt’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
deni ed the certification petition , and Polhamus does not cite to t his c ourt’s subsequent opinion in which we rul ed that the officer ’s request t hat the defendant
exit the car and consent to a frisk did not improperly extend the stop in vi o lation o f
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 Indus trial Ri

sk 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 app eals 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 affirme d.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23 (1)(b)4.