State v. Quartana, 213 Wis.2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Quartana: Donal L. Connor II
Issue/Holding:
… Thus, when a person under investigation pursuant to a Terry stop is moved from one location to another, there exists a two-part inquiry. First, was the person moved within the “vicinity?” Second, was the purpose in moving the person within the vicinity reasonable?”Vicinity” is commonly understood to mean “a surrounding area or district” or “locality.” … We are satisfied that the legislature’s use of the term “vicinity” comports with the dictionary definition. We are further convinced that the accident scene, only one mile from Quartana’s house, was in the “surrounding area” or “locality.” As evidenced by Quartana’s own actions, it was within walking distance even in the winter. Therefore, Quartana was moved within the vicinity. …
…
Quartana argues that the conditions of his transportation amounted to an arrest. Quartana argues that the restraint of his liberty proves he was under arrest. He is wrong. A restraint of liberty does not ipso facto prove that an arrest has taken place. …
We conclude that a reasonable person in Quartana’s position would not have believed he or she was under arrest. Quartana was not transported to a more institutional setting, such as a police station or interrogation room. …
See also, e.g., U.S. v. Martinez, 8th Cir No. 05-4275, 9/11/06 (neither handcuffing nor transport to scene for show-up ID procedure established arrest, court carefully distinguishing transport for purpose of interrogation: “In Hayes v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that transporting a suspect from his home to a police station for questioning goes beyond the scope of a Terry stop and effects an arrest for which there must be probable cause.”).
