{"id":12527,"date":"2014-07-14T01:39:05","date_gmt":"2014-07-14T06:39:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12527"},"modified":"2014-07-13T21:41:57","modified_gmt":"2014-07-14T02:41:57","slug":"wi-passengers-statement-got-a-warrant-for-that-was-not-objection-to-drivers-consent-to-briefcase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12527","title":{"rendered":"WI: Passenger’s statement \u201cGot a warrant for that?\u201d, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase"},"content":{"rendered":"

Originally posted June 7, 2013<\/a>, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a passenger’s statement \u201cGot a warrant for that?\u201d, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase. a href=”http:\/\/wicourts.gov\/ca\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92854″>State v. Wantland<\/a>, 2013 WI App 36, 346 Wis. 2d 680, 828 N.W.2d 885 (2013). The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed in State v. Wantland<\/a>, 2014 WI 58, 2014 Wisc. LEXIS 475 (July 11, 2014):
\n<\/p>\n

[*P4] The State argues that Wantland’s question “Got a warrant for that? was too ambiguous to constitute a withdrawal of the driver’s consent. The State further contends that the officer was under no duty to clarify Wantland’s question.<\/p>\n

[*P5] We conclude that Wantland did not effectively withdraw the driver’s consent when he asked “Got a warrant for that?” Further, we conclude that police officers confronted with ambiguous statements, such as Wantland’s, are not under a duty to ask follow-up questions to clarify the ambiguity. As a result, we conclude that the search of the briefcase was reasonable under the circumstances, and we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Originally posted June 7, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a passenger’s statement \u201cGot a warrant for that?\u201d, was not objection to driver’s consent to briefcase. a href=”http:\/\/wicourts.gov\/ca\/opinion\/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=92854″>State v. Wantland, 2013 WI App 36, 346 Wis. 2d 680, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-scope-of-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12527"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12528,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12527\/revisions\/12528"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}