Court Opinion

ID: 9739371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:13:08.262413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.388729
License: Public Domain

JANINE P. GESKE, J.
(concurring). I fully concur in not only the mandate, but also in the legal analysis presented in the majority opinion. I am writing this concurrence solely to address the dissent.
As noted in the dissent, the "controlling principles of law applicable to this case are firmly established." (Dissent at 218.) These include the principle that the determination of whether an officer had the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down must be based on the totality of the circumstances. This court has often reiterated that "all of the circumstances . . . are to be considered in determining what was reasonable police procedure in the particular situation." State v. Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 520, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973) (quoting State v. Chambers, 55 Wis. 2d 289, 297, 198 N.W.2d 377 (1972)).
A court must employ common sense in its analysis of whether an officer, at the time of the encounter, faced a situation which in its entirety justified a pat-down. Individual factors cannot simply be pulled out and discarded one by one. As the Supreme Court noted, even "Terry itself involved a 'series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent' if viewed separately, 'but which taken together warranted further investigation.'" United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1989) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968)). The facts and inferences relied upon need not all be given equal weight but the totality of the circumstances confronting the officer must at least be considered.
I agree with the dissent's assertion that hindsight cannot constitutionally be employed to justify a pat-*217down. (Dissent at 223.) However, neither can hindsight be used to selectively discount facts and circumstances as they were perceived by the officer at the time of the encounter. The totality of circumstances must be examined not from the viewpoint of one sitting on a judicial bench under the cold white lights of a safe courtroom, but rather from the viewpoint of a police officer standing in what he believes to be a "fairly-high-crime" area at 4:00 a.m. next to a car with three men in it, having to make that split-second decision of whether, under the circumstances, to pat-down Morgan for the officer's own safety. Did the officer have a reasonable suspicion Morgan might be armed under the circumstances? At 4:00 a.m. on March 2, Officer Mullock had observed the car exit an alley, make several turns and then enter another alley at a time when there was not much traffic on the road. He had observed a vehicle with expired plates which contained three men. Upon stopping the car, he saw Morgan nervously fail to locate a driver's license despite repeatedly checking his pockets and wallet.
The key, as with any Fourth Amendment question, is reasonableness. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19. I agree with the majority in our de novo review that, under the circumstances presented to Officer Mullock at the time of the pat-down, his suspicion that Morgan may be armed was reasonable.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Roland B. Day and Justices Donald W. Steinmetz, William A. Bablitch, Jon P. Wilcox and Ann Walsh Bradley join this concurring opinion.