Consent
Case Analysis
April
26, 2006
As
a practical matter, it is difficult to see how the decision in this case will
not develop into a bright-line rule that an encounter initiated by a lawful traffic
stop is not consensual unless the motorist’s driver’s license is returned.
Not
surprisingly, the court did not make so broad a holding. In Wisconsin, almost
all Fourth Amendment questions are decided on a totality of the circumstances
test. The Supreme Court eschews bright-line tests, and the court of appeals is
wise to follow suit.
Instead,
the court relied on several different factors in finding that a reasonable motorist
in Luebeck’s position would not have felt free to leave: his driver’s
license was not returned; the detention lasted more than 20 minutes; no citation
had yet been issued; he passed all of the field sobriety tests; his preliminary
breath test indicated a BAC well below the legal limit; and he was being questioned
about his passenger’s ability to drive in his stead.
The
court would only go so far as to say that the fact that the driver’s license
was still being retained by the officer was a “key factor” in deciding
that Luebeck was “seized”; therefore, his consent was involuntary.
As
a result, in future cases in which an officer obtains consent to search while
still retaining the driver’s license, the State will likely seek to distinguish
this case, citing the absence of some combination of the other enumerated factors.
Nevertheless,
such attempts should be unsuccessful for one obvious reason: no reasonable person
would ever drive away from a traffic stop, while the police officer is still holding
on to that person’s driver’s license.
It
is not even legal; driving without a driver’s license on your person is against
the law, and the officer would be justified in immediately stopping the motorist
all over again, to issue a citation for that. See sec. 343.18(1).
Accordingly,
notwithstanding the reluctance on the part of Wisconsin courts to create bright-line
rules in the Fourth Amendment context, the court’s decision should inevitably
lead to a de facto rule that is the de jure rule in the Tenth Circuit: an encounter
initiated by a lawful traffic stop is not consensual unless the motorist’s
driver’s license is returned. U.S. v. Lee, 73 F.3d 1034, 1040 (10th Cir.
1996), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th
Cir. 2001).
-
David Ziemer
Click
here for Main Story.
David
Ziemer can be reached by email.
