On Point: 2. Traffic stops

State v. Marvin L. Dillman, 2012AP865-CR, District 2, 3/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop truck which she first saw “sideways” on the road and then observed accelerate quickly toward the curb before correcting itself and speeding away so quickly it required her to accelerate her squad car to 50 m.p.h. over three or four blocks to catch up:

¶7        Kollmann witnessed Dillman’s truck sideways in the roadway and then travel at a speed in excess of the speed limit.

State v. Todd A. Laws, 2012AP1930-CR, District 2, 3/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Stop of Laws’s vehicle was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion he was driving while intoxicated, contrasting State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634:

¶9        Each case stands on its own unique facts; however, the conduct in this case arguably provided more reason for suspicion than that in Post.  

State v. Heather Tollefson, 2012AP1641-CR, District 4, 2/14/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A police officer had probable cause to stop Tollefson for failing to fully stop for a flashing red traffic light. The officer saw a red vehicle approach an intersection with flashing red lights in each direction. (¶3). A gray vehicle followed behind the red vehicle. (¶3). The red vehicle stopped before going through the intersection;

City of Oshkosh v. Eric Carley, 2012AP2043, District 2, 2/13/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Police officer had probable cause to stop Carley after he saw Carley drive in the left lane to go around a turning vehicle, but did so within several car lengths of oncoming traffic before moving back into the right lane. (¶2). The officer’s observations gave him probable cause to stop Carley because he had reason to believe Carley had violated Wis.

State v. Kevin O’Connor, 2012AP1638-CR, District 2, 1/23/12; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police lawfully stopped defendant because the vehicle he was driving did not have a visible front license plate. While there are exceptions to  the statute requiring vehicles to display a front plate (Wis. Stat. § 341.15), the “great majority” of vehicles on the road are required to have a front plate.

State v. Tamara Jo Potter, 2012AP1605-CR, District 3, 1/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Police lawfully stopped the defendant based on information from an anonymous tip that was corroborated by the officer’s observations. Minnesota police told Douglas County dispatch that it had received a tip of a “swerving” car heading into Superior. An officer in Superior located a car meeting the description and followed it.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

State v. Andrew Wheaton, 2012AP173-CR

Reasonable Suspicion – OWI

Presence of the following factors establish reasonable suspicion to stop Wheaton for impaired driving:

¶23      The State points to the following as factors that produced an objectively reasonable suspicion of impaired driving at the time of the stop:  (1) Wheaton was driving at 3:05 a.m.,

State v. Randall Lee Sugden, 2012AP408-CR, District 4, 10/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Arrest in Richland County by a Sauk County deputy sheriff was justified under the fresh pursuit doctrine, § 175.40(2). State v. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, 248 Wis. 2d 724, 638 N.W.2d 82, discussed and applied:

¶12      Applying Haynes to the facts of this case,

State v. Jan P. Hogan, 2012AP966-CR, District 4, 10/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of car displaying “dealer imitation” plate (i.e., failing to display permanent or temporary plate in violation of § 341.04(1)). State v. Griffin, 183 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 515 N.W.2d 535 (Ct. App. 1994) (OK to stop car with “license applied for”

State v. Timothy W. Bastian, 2012AP793-CR, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

 The court holds, without resolving the issue of whether reasonable suspicion sufficed, that probable cause supported Bastian’s traffic stop for inattentive driving, given “the circuit court’s factual determination that Bastian was ‘looking towards the passenger seat’”:

¶10      Wisconsin Stat. § 346.89, titled “Inattentive driving,” provides in relevant part:  “No person while driving a motor vehicle shall be so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving of such vehicle.”  Wis.