 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Griffith6/28/2000
2000 WI 72
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN
Case No.: 98-0931-CR
Complete Title of Case:
State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terry Griffith, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at: 226 Wis. 2d 562, 596 N.W.2d 501 (Ct. App. 1999-Unpublished)
Oral Argument: April 7, 2000
Racine JUDGE: Emmanuel Vuvunas
Dissented: BRADLEY, J., dissents (opinion filed).
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., joins dissent. Not Participating:
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Affirmed.
Terry Griffith petitions for review of a decision of the court of appeals affirming his convictions for obstructing an officer, possession of marijuana, and escape from custody. Griffith was convicted in the Circuit Court for Racine County, Emmanuel J. Vuvunas, Judge. On appeal, Griffith argues that the police questioning that led to the obstruction charge constituted an unreasonable search or seizure. Griffith contends that all of his convictions should therefore be reversed.
. Griffith was convicted for obstructing an officer after he gave a police officer false information during a traffic stop. Griffith was arrested at the scene of the traffic stop, but he escaped from the officers and fled from the scene. He was later identified as the escaped passenger and was apprehended.
. At his trial, Griffith presented a defense of mistaken identity, arguing that he was not the passenger who fled from police. The jury found Griffith guilty.
. In a post-conviction motion, Griffith argued that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to raise a Fourth Amendment argument. Griffith's claim is that under the Fourth Amendment and Wis. Const. art. 1, § 11, the officer lacked lawful authority to ask the passenger his name and date of birth. If the officer lacked lawful authority to pose these questions to the passenger, then the passenger did not violate Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1)(1995-96), obstructing an officer. If the passenger was not subject to a legal arrest, then the marijuana was not discovered during a lawful search incident to arrest. In addition, if the passenger was never legally arrested, then he did not "escape" from legal arrest in violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.42(3)(a). In sum, Griffith contends that because the officer lacked lawful authority to ask his name and date of birth, all of his convictions must fail.
. The circuit court rejected Griffith's argument. The court determined that Griffith's Fourth Amendment argument was without merit and that failure to raise a meritless argument did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, and Griffith petitioned for review.
. We agree with the circuit court and the court of appeals that Griffith's Fourth Amendment argument fails on the merits. Asking the passenger his name and date of birth during a lawful traffic stop was not an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We therefore affirm.
I.
. Because Griffith's trial counsel did not raise any Fourth Amendment challenge, no suppression hearing took place in this case. Griffith also did not attempt to establish additional facts surrounding the traffic stop at his post-conviction hearing. Thus, the only record of the events surrounding the traffic stop and the questioning of the passenger were established through testimony at Griffith's trial. The facts established at the trial are as follows.
. On November 19, 1996, Investigators Bruce La
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|