COA finds motorist not in Miranda custody during traffic stop
State of Wisconsin v. Kara S. Kluck, 2023AP952-CR, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the presence of multiple officers, COA finds the test for custody is not satisfied by this interaction and affirms.
Police were dispatched for a report of erratic driving and stopped the car following further observations which corroborated that report. (¶4). There were two officers in the squad car. (Id.). A police trainee and a supervisor arrived shortly thereafter, apparently to observe the stop for training purposes. (Id.). The primary officer, Raasoch, asked Kluck to move her vehicle, as it was blocking traffic. (¶5). Based on his additional observations, Raasoch suspected an OWI. (¶7). While conducting a roadside investigation including field sobriety tests, Raasoch expressed his belief that Kluck had consumed some kind of substance and asked her to tell him what she had taken. (¶9). She admitted to taking “one tablet of Oxycodone within the past 40 hours.” (Id.). Kluck was ultimately arrested and charged with an OWI offense. (Id.). She filed a motion to suppress, arguing that she had been subject to an unconstitutional interrogation prior to being arrested. (¶1). Following the denial of her motion and an adverse jury verdict, she appeals.
On appeal, COA makes short work this argument, finding that no reasonable person would believe themselves to be “in custody” during the 13-minute interaction at issue. (¶19). While Kluck claims she was subjected to “nonstop interrogation” which intimidated her, COA disagrees with that description of the interaction. (Id.). And, while she also points to the presence of multiple officers as a fact in her favor, she fails to fully develop an argument as to why the mere presence of these officers, under these facts, transformed this temporary detention into a constructive arrest. (¶20). She also points to her statement inquiring whether she was going to be arrested, arguing that this makes her case analogous to State v. Dobbs. (¶21). COA disagrees. There, “the defendant was immediately handcuffed and placed in the back of a locked police vehicle; the defendant was advised that he was being detained for a suspected hit and run homicide; and the defendant was questioned by police while he was handcuffed in the back of the police vehicle after stating “I take it I’m going to jail.” (Id.). None of these factors are at issue in this case, so COA affirms.