On Point: b. Stop found unlawful

State v. Kenneth C. House, 2013 WI App 111; case activity

House was stopped for operating with a suspended registration. After running House’s license and learning he was on probation for a drug offense, the officer returned House’s license and issued him a warning for the suspended registration. The officer then retrieved his police dog who, after sniffing around the vehicle, alerted on the driver and passenger doors.

Village of DeForest v. Lynn J. Braun, 2011AP2116, District 4, 3/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Braun: Robert Nagel; case activity

Stop for driving under the influence unsupported by reasonable suspicion:

¶11      I likewise conclude that there were insufficient facts before Officer Schaefer which could lead him to reasonably suspect that Braun was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant.  

State v. Dimitrius Anagnos, 2011 WI App 118 (recommended for publication); for Anagnos: Barry S. Cohen; case activity; reversed, 2012 WI 64

Traffic Stop – No Turn Signal

Failure to use a turn signal where neither traffic nor pedestrians are present doesn’t support a traffic stop:

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 346.34(1)(b) states that a driver must use a turn signal “[i]n the event that any other traffic may be affected.”  The circuit court found that Anagnos did not violate this statute when he made a left turn without using his signal,

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Leon: Robert C. Raymond; Leon BiC; State Resp.; Reply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. Jerome Hoehne, 2009AP2561-CR, District 4, 9/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoehen: Bill Ginsberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable Cause – Traffic Violation: Driving in Center Lane

Driving in the center lane of a 3-lane highway did not support probable cause to arrest for a traffic violation:

¶8        On appeal,

State v. Brittany A. Meye, No. 2010AP336-CR, District II, 7/14/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Meye: Kevin G. Keane; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶6        Meye argues that the odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. We agree. We will not cite, chapter and verse, all the many cases in this state where either we or our supreme court found facts sufficient for an investigatory stop.

State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The following factors did not add up to reasonable suspicion supporting the frisk of a passenger during a routine traffic stop (¶17):

(1) The officer testified that he “didn’t feel any particular threat before searching” the defendant.
(2) The defendant,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp Br. (Baake); Reply (State)

Traffic Stop – Failure to Yield to Stopped Police Vehicle
Stop for failure to yield unsupported: “§ 346.072, by its plain language, only requires a motorist to change lanes if there are two or more lanes in the motorist’s direction of travel and it is safe to do so,” ¶11; no “testimony that Baake failed to slow down or that he was traveling at an unsafe speed,

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

Vehicle Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – Anonymous Tip Insufficient
Anonymous tip “from an unknown informant calling from an unknown location” that driver in restaurant parking lot pouring out beer insufficiently reliable to support subsequent stop, where no traffic violations or erratic driving observed.

court of appeals decision; for Conaway: Philip J. Brehm; for Griffin: Michael S. Murphy

Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop, Excessive Window Tint, Generally

¶3    The window tint regulation at issue here is easily summarized. Rear window tinting is permitted only if the window allows at least 35% of light to pass through, except that the limitation does not apply to tinting done during the original manufacture of a vehicle.