Background
Alan Lee Schade appealed judgments entered after he pleaded no contest to robbery of a financial institution, felony bail jumping, and misdemeanor theft. His appeal challenged only the denial of his motion to suppress evidence allegedly derived from an arrest unsupported by probable cause.
Before arresting Schade the day after the robbery, police connected him to surveillance footage of both a suspected casing incident and the robbery. The person seen casing the bank shared physical characteristics with Schade, wore a sweatshirt from Schade’s former employer, and drove a black Chevrolet Silverado with features matching Schade’s truck. A similarly distinctive truck was used in the robbery, and Schade’s vehicle was seen just over one mile from the bank approximately 13 minutes after the robbery was reported.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the totality of the circumstances gave police probable cause to believe that Schade had committed the robbery. The evidence was not limited to the fact that Schade drove a black Silverado; it included his apparent connection to the earlier casing, similarities in physical appearance and clothing, the truck’s specific aftermarket and other identifying features, and the vehicle’s proximity to the bank shortly after the robbery.
The court also rejected Schade’s challenge to the finding that the robber’s truck had dual exhaust. Because that finding rested on disputed testimony and video evidence, the clearly erroneous standard applied. The circuit court was entitled to credit the arresting officer’s testimony that exhaust vapor was visible on the driver’s side, and the appellate court found no basis to disturb that credibility determination. It therefore affirmed the judgments and the denial of suppression.
Key Takeaways
- Probable cause is assessed from the combined weight of the circumstances known to the arresting officer, not by isolating each fact.
- Matching physical characteristics, connections to a casing incident, distinctive vehicle features, and close temporal and geographic proximity supported Schade’s arrest.
- Factual findings based on disputed testimony and video evidence are reviewed for clear error when the circuit court had the advantage of evaluating witness credibility.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how multiple individually nonconclusive facts can collectively establish probable cause. It also underscores the deference appellate courts give to trial-level credibility findings when video evidence is considered together with disputed witness testimony.
The opinion is unpublished and may not be cited as precedent or authority in Wisconsin courts except for the limited purposes allowed by Wisconsin law.