On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

State v. George C. Greenwood, 2010AP1837-CR, District 4, 12/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Greenwood: Gerald C. Opgenorth; case activity; Greenwood BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic stop properly based on violation of illuminaiton requirement in § 347.13(3) (rear plate must be illuminated by white light so as to be clearly legible from distance of 50 feet).

State v. Brian R. Rogers, 2010AP1300-CR, District 4, 12/9/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; State’s Resp. Br.

Even assuming Rogers violated no traffic law, his driving pattern provided reasonable suspicion for a stop:

¶10      Here too, the totality of the circumstances provided Lambrecht with reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop.  Lambrecht observed Rogers’ vehicle weave both within and outside its lane multiple times over the span of approximately one mile.  

City of Sheboygan v. Brian J. Cesar, 2010 WI App 170 (recommended for publication); for Cesar: Andrew Mishlove, Lauren Stuckert; Cesar BiC; City Resp.; Reply; AG Amicus

Police, investigating a recent traffic accident, knocked on Cesar’s door and rang his doorbell “numerous” times for up to 10 minutes, and threatened to remain until he came out or they got a warrant;

County of Sauk v. Julio Leon, 2010AP1593, District 4, 11/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Leon: Robert C. Raymond; Leon BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Odor of intoxicants insufficient, alone, to support administering PBT.

¶20      When an officer is not aware of bad driving, then other factors suggesting impairment must be more substantial.  For example,

State v. Joseph E. Jenamann, 2010AP1825-CR, District 4, 11/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jenamann: Matthew Allen; State BiC; Jenamann Resp; Reply

Continuing detention, following routine traffic stop for loud muffler and after Jenamann passed sobriety tests, was unlawful:

¶12      The only suspicious factors suggesting drug activity were bloodshot, glassy eyes, shakiness, and a nervous suspect. 

State v. Joshua L. McDonald, 2010AP1045-CR, District 4, 11/18/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for McDonald: Tracey A. Wood; McDonald BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Duration

¶13      We conclude that the time it took for the deputy to ask McDonald whether he had been drinking that night and for McDonald to answer did not unreasonably prolong the stop.  

State v. John J. Neff, 2010AP1092-CR, District 2, 11/10/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neff: Dennis P. Coffey; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Report that intoxicated individual had urinated in public and was driving away held  sufficiently reliable to support stop:

¶12      We now turn to the anonymous tip in this case.  The tip was that two individuals were possibly intoxicated in the Sybaris parking lot,

State v. Joseph F. Brown, 2010AP832-CR, District 4, 10/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.

It violates § 347.12(1)(a) to flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle if the latter’s high-beams are not themselves lit. Because Brown flashed his high-beams within 500 feet of an officer’s oncoming vehicle and, according to the trial court’s findings,

State v. Dennis Butler, 2010AP864-CR, District 2, 10/13/10 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Butler: Kathleen A. Lindgren; BiC; Resp.

Frisk upheld, where initial contact came within community caretaker function, and Butler then gave cause to believe he was armed and dangerous.

¶13      We hold that Pergande properly exercised his community caretaker function during his entire encounter with Butler.  

court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply

OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing

Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by the law enforcement agency at no expense to the driver,