COA affirms traffic stop for reasonable suspicion of noise ordinance violation
State v. Jacobe Michael Gimmel, 2025AP1037 & 2025AP1537, 1/29/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Gimmel appeals his conviction for OWI 2nd and the revocation of his driver’s license for refusing a chemical test. The sole issue in the consolidated appeal is whether the officer who stopped Gimmel had reasonable suspicion to do so. COA affirms, concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion that Gimmel had violated a local noise ordinance.
The officer stopped Gimmel after observing him stop at a stop sign and then “accelerate rapidly, squealing the back tires” as he proceeded through the intersection. The front end of Gimmel’s truck “‘lifted higher’ during this acceleration, then leveled off[.]” (¶3). The officer was familiar with a Watertown ordinance,–“something in the nature of that no person may accelerate their
vehicle [in] any way to squeal their tires.” (¶4). The officer pulled Gimmel’s truck over and, eventually, arrested him for OWI. Gimmel refused to consent to a chemical test. (¶5).
The officer testified at the refusal hearing, and Gimmel also challenged the stop. The circuit court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Gimmel’s vehicle, based on the officer’s testimony that he believed Gimmel had violated the Watertown noise ordinance. (¶¶7-8).
The sole basis the officer testified to for stopping Gimmel’s truck was the officer’s belief that Gimmel had violated the Watertown noise ordinance. COA rejects Gimmel’s arguments and relies on the circuit court’s finding that the officer’s testimony was credible. (¶¶11-17).