Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

City of Milwaukee v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
439 N.W.2d 562 (1989)


Facts

Milwaukee City Ordinance 106-31(1)(a) (the Ordinance) prohibits loitering or prowling “in a place, at a time, or in a matter not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.” Certain factors may be considered when deciding whether alarm is justified, including flight, failure to identify oneself, and attempts to hide oneself or objects. However, a police officer must give a suspect the chance to explain why alarm is unwarranted before arrest. Police saw Nelson (defendant) on the street in front of a tavern. The officers watched him shake hands in a friendly manner with a number of pedestrians and automobile passengers, though the police did not see any exchange of money or objects. The officers approached Nelson, and he rushed into the tavern. The officers returned to their post a block away and saw Nelson come back outside and continue shaking hands with people. Again, the police approached the tavern, and Nelson went inside. The police followed Nelson inside and asked him what he had been doing outside. Nelson replied that he was doing “nothing.” Nelson was patted down, but no weapon was found. Nelson was arrested for violating the Ordinance and was brought to the police station in a police van. The van was later searched, and a handgun was discovered, which Nelson admitted was his, that he had hidden it in his pants, and that it was stolen. Nelson was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. In a separate case, Nelson pleaded guilty to the loitering offense. However, in relation to the concealed-weapon charge, Nelson moved to suppress the evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, arguing that the loitering ordinance was unconstitutional.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Day, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Abrahamson, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.