On Point: G. Reasonable suspicion

Shawano Co. v. William P. Pari, No. 2009AP2338-FT, District III, 6/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pari: John S. Bartholomew; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶10    We agree that Pari’s minimal deviations within the traffic lane do not alone give rise to reasonable suspicion that he was operating while intoxicated. See id., ¶¶18-21. Nor do we place great emphasis on that fact here when considering the totality of the circumstances.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Oetzman: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – U-Turn

¶8     As such, three rules of the road come into play.Under Wis. Stat. § 346.34(1), no person may turn a vehicle at an intersection unless the vehicle is in proper position upon the roadway as required in Wis.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Manske: Jennifer R. Drow; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

¶16     Manske submits that because his driving was in some respects not consistent with an impaired driver, Galipo did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. However, the test for reasonable suspicion is not whether all of the driver’s actions constituted erratic driving.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lonergan: Owen R. Williams; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Stop

Stop supported by reasonable suspicion, where vehicle “‘deviated constantly’ from a direct line of travel” and “made several abrupt course corrections,” albeit within its own lane. United States v. Lyons, 7 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 1993) and United States v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Dewitt: Thomas E. Hayes; BiC; Resp.

Detention for 90 Minutes not Unreasonable

Stop of motorist Dewitt by officer who, because he was off-duty, could not under departmental rules himself perform arrest, wasn’t unnecessarily prolonged by 90 minute delay until on-duty officer could show up.

¶15 Dewitt has presented no evidence to show that Officer Geffert,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication);  for Miske: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.

Terry Stop – Voluntary Encounter

A voluntary encounter, rather than Terry stop, occurred where Miske came to a stop when approaching two squads flanking “an unlit back country road” at 1:00 a.m.:

¶12      When Miske and his partner stopped, they were on a narrow road,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davison: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI
Reasonable suspicion found to administer field sobriety tests, where Davison admitted drinking 4 or 5 beers, had alcohol on his breath, was in close proximity to the bar where he had been drinking, and it was bar closing time.

“Bar closing time”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pintar: Sarvan Singh; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation
The police had probable cause to believe Pintar violated § 343.13(1), given uncontroverted testimony that his vehicle “moved across the center skip line (of I-94) into the lane of a car that was approaching from the rear, causing the car to activate its break lights and move out of the way.”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Able: Francesco G. Mineo; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reasonable Suspicion, Stop
Police had reasonable suspicion for temporary detention: after business hours, car pulled into parking lot of fitness club that had been subject of recent burglaries.

Conclusion unremarkable save perhaps court’s inexplicable emphasis that event occurred “close to bar closing time,” ¶12.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Traffic Stops
No seizure, given that police neither “prompted” Hennessey to park car not blocked him in; therefore reasonable suspicion not necessary to approach car.