State v. Antonio D. Brown
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Dissent · RoggensackPatience Drake Roggensack, J.
¶ 82. (dissenting). For purposes of this dissent, I assume, arguendo, that the majority opinion's conclusion that Antonio Brown's tail lamp was in "good working order" under Wis. Stat. § 347.13(1) is correct. I write in dissent *705to explain why the majority opinion's conclusion that "an officer's mistake of law is not sufficient grounds for a stop" is not correct.1 See State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 9, 593 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999). I conclude that the legality of a stop depends on whether under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable officer could have believed that a law violation…
Also in this document: Dissent · Prosser; Dissent · Prosser.
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Whren v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.