On Point: 2. Traffic stops

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Adam Walsh; BiC; Resp.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

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,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Grenie: John C. Orth; Steven J. House; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traffic Stop – Blue Lights

Traffic stop for having blue lights lit on front of vehicle, upheld. (§ 347.07(2)(a) bars display of “(a)ny color of light other than white or amber visible from directly in front.”)

¶6        Grenie essentially asks this court to credit testimony by his two witnesses suggesting that the blue lights were “never” operational over the officer’s testimony that he saw the lights lit when Grenie’s Jeep passed him.

State v. Joseph Donald Peacock, 2010AP954-CR, District 3, 9/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Peacock: James R. Phelan; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Because the officer knew from previous contacts, including one a mere 6 days prior, that Peacock’s driver’s license was suspended, he had reasonable suspicion to stop Peacock’s vehicle even though there were multiple occupants and the officer couldn’t see the driver.

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoehen: Bill Ginsberg; BiC; Resp.; Reply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

City of Tomah v. Matthew Pudlow, 2010AP1044, District 4, 9/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Pudlow: Rick Niemeier, Maggie Premo; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Traveling in reverse at 30 mph, near an intersection with a highway, provided reasonable suspicion to stop:

¶13      The totality of the circumstances provided Officer Furlano with reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative stop of the vehicle in order to investigate Pudlow’s driving behavior,

City of Oshkosh v. Richard A. Selquist, 2010AP862, District 2, 9/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Selquist: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The police had reasonable suspicion to continue temporary detention of Selquist and to request filed sobriety testing while investigating a traffic accident:

¶7        …  In reviewing whether the officer’s further investigation and request for field sobriety tests were warranted,

County of Milwaukee v. Katherine R. Harmon, 2010AP297, District 1, 8/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Harmon: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.

Traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion of impaired driving based on: driving on lane-divider lines, crossing lane-divider by half-foot, and “jerkiness in … front steer tires.”

The court notes that while “merely weaving within the confines of a driver’s traffic lane is not sufficient to support reasonable suspicion sufficient to make a traffic stop …,

State v. Randall L. Wegener, 2010AP452-CR, District 1, 8/18/10

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

Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop

Inclement winter weather didn’t obviate the need to stay within the proper lane, such that crossing the center line, even briefly a few times, provided reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop.

¶6        Wegener argues that Fabry did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop because he was driving appropriately for part of the time he was followed and blames his lack of control of his vehicle on the snowy weather conditions.

State v. James Casas Klausen, 2009AP2268, District 4, 8/12/10

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

Traffic Stop – No Wisconsin DL

Wisconsin law “contemplates that a person with a valid out-of-state driver’s license who becomes a Wisconsin resident has sixty days, after becoming a Wisconsin resident, to apply for a Wisconsin license,” ¶6.