Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
County of Grant v. Daniel A. Vogtgreen2 sentences2023Under the Mendenhall test—which controls in Wisconsin in cases like Kahle’s where a person cooperates with an officer—“‘a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.’” Vogt, 356 Wis. 2d 343, ¶20 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). 2023Under the Mendenhall test—which controls in Wisconsin in cases like Kahle’s where a person cooperates with an officer—“‘a person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.’” Vogt, 356 Wis. 2d 343, ¶20 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Mendenhallgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84 , ¶14 & nn.6-7, 327 Wis. 2d 252 , 786 N.W.2d 97 (both Fourth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution protect the “right to be secure against unreasonable … seizures,” and Wisconsin courts typically interpret these constitutional “protections in this area identically”). 10 Nos. 2022AP702 2023AP1346-CR citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.’” Id., ¶¶23, 53 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). ¶23 We now turn to Vogt because it illustrates the application of the Mendenhall test to 2024See State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84 , ¶14 & nn.6-7, 327 Wis. 2d 252 , 786 N.W.2d 97 (both Fourth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution protect the “right to be secure against unreasonable … seizures,” and Wisconsin courts typically interpret these constitutional “protections in this area identically”). 10 Nos. 2022AP702 2023AP1346-CR citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.’” Id., ¶¶23, 53 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). ¶23 We now turn to Vogt because it illustrates the application of the Mendenhall test to | 2 | 4 |
California v. Hodari D.green2 sentences2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . 2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . 2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . | 1 | 2 |
Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Delgadogreen2 sentences2006As this court noted in Williams , "most citizens will respond to a police request," and "the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response." Williams, 255 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 23 , 646 N.W.2d 834 (quoting Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216 , 104 S.Ct. 1758 ). ¶ 38 Hodari D., which was foreshadowed by Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Chesternut, supplements the Mendenhall test to address situations where a person flees in response to a police show of authority. 2006As this court noted in Williams , "most citizens will respond to a police request," and "the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response." Williams, 255 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 23 , 646 N.W.2d 834 (quoting Delgado, 466 U.S. at 216 , 104 S.Ct. 1758 ). ¶ 38 Hodari D., which was foreshadowed by Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Chesternut, supplements the Mendenhall test to address situations where a person flees in response to a police show of authority. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dearborngreen2 sentences2024See State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84 , ¶14 & nn.6-7, 327 Wis. 2d 252 , 786 N.W.2d 97 (both Fourth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution protect the “right to be secure against unreasonable … seizures,” and Wisconsin courts typically interpret these constitutional “protections in this area identically”). 10 Nos. 2022AP702 2023AP1346-CR citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.’” Id., ¶¶23, 53 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). ¶23 We now turn to Vogt because it illustrates the application of the Mendenhall test to 2024See State v. Dearborn, 2010 WI 84 , ¶14 & nn.6-7, 327 Wis. 2d 252 , 786 N.W.2d 97 (both Fourth Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution protect the “right to be secure against unreasonable … seizures,” and Wisconsin courts typically interpret these constitutional “protections in this area identically”). 10 Nos. 2022AP702 2023AP1346-CR citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.’” Id., ¶¶23, 53 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554 ). ¶23 We now turn to Vogt because it illustrates the application of the Mendenhall test to | 1 | 1 |
Brendlin v. Californiagreen2 sentences2023See id.; Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 260 (2007) (collecting cases showing that the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce” an element of subjectivity into the Mendenhall test). 2023See id.; Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 260 (2007) (collecting cases showing that the U.S. Supreme Court has “repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce” an element of subjectivity into the Mendenhall test). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelsey C.R.green2 sentences2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . 2023See State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶¶30-33 , 243 Wis. 2d 422 , 626 N.W.2d 777 (discussing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 622-23, 635-26, 629 (1991)). ¶14 Notably for the scenario here, the Mendenhall test “is an objective one” that turns entirely on “whether a reasonable person [in the position of the defendant], under all the circumstances, would have felt free to leave.” Williams, 255 Wis. 2d 1, ¶23 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martinez-Fuertegreen2 sentences2014The Court then adopted the Mendenhall standard and stated that there is no seizure "[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave." Id. ¶25 The rule that a seizure occurs only when law enforcement restrains a person's liberty by show of authority advances the goals of the Fourth Amendment: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but "to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy a 2014The Court then adopted the Mendenhall standard and stated that there is no seizure "[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave." Id. ¶25 The rule that a seizure occurs only when law enforcement restrains a person's liberty by show of authority advances the goals of the Fourth Amendment: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but "to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy a | 1 | 1 |
Kaupp v. Texasgreen2 sentences2006Kaupp, 538 U.S. at 629 (emphasis added; internal quotations omitted). ¶ 121. 2006Kaupp, 538 U.S. at 629 (emphasis added; internal quotations omitted). ¶ 121. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Draytongreen2 sentences2006United States v. Drayton confirms this. 12 Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2002). 2006United States v. Drayton confirms this. 12 Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2006See Young, 277 Wis. 2d 715, ¶¶ 20-26 . 2006See Young, 277 Wis.2d 715, ¶¶ 20-26 , 690 N.W.2d 866 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
2 sentences2014The Court then adopted the Mendenhall standard and stated that there is no seizure "[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave." Id. ¶25 The rule that a seizure occurs only when law enforcement restrains a person's liberty by show of authority advances the goals of the Fourth Amendment: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but "to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy a 2014The Court then adopted the Mendenhall standard and stated that there is no seizure "[u]nless the circumstances of the encounter are so intimidating as to demonstrate that a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave." Id. ¶25 The rule that a seizure occurs only when law enforcement restrains a person's liberty by show of authority advances the goals of the Fourth Amendment: The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but "to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference by enforcement officials with the privacy a | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Michigan v. Chesternut
green
2 sentences2002The Mendenhall test for determining whether a particular police contact constitutes a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215 (1984), and Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988), and derives from Justice Stewart's lead opinion in the Mendenhall case: We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. 2002The Mendenhall test for determining whether a particular police contact constitutes a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215 (1984), and Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573 (1988), and derives from Justice Stewart's lead opinion in the Mendenhall case: We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.