Rinehart v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence nor the sentence imposed. He does present several issues that blend into two contentions: (1) The officer did not have probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crimes, and (2) that an arrest without a warrant was illegal.
“Probable cause” has been defined in many cases in this court and elsewhere. A recent definition appears in State v. Paszek (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 619, 624, 625, 184 N. W. 2d 836, as follows:
“Probable cause to arrest refers to that quantum of evidence which would lead a reasonable police officer to…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Draper v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Laasch v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Johnson v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. DrogsvoldCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1981
- West v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Sanders v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.