 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kratochwill3/16/2000
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant County: ROBERT P. VANDEHEY, Judge. Affirmed.
Gary M. Kratochwill appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OMVWI). He claims that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an encounter between Kratochwill and a police officer because the officer unreasonably detained him without reasonable suspicion. Because the officer did not pull over Kratochwill's vehicle or exhibit physical force or a show of authority when he approached Kratochwill's vehicle that had stopped in the parking lot of a closed gas station before the officer arrived, we conclude that Kratochwill was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, until after the officer had reasonable suspicion to do so. Therefore, the evidence obtained was properly admitted and accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
BACKGROUND
. On November 1, 1998, Deputy Bruce Visser of the Grant County Sheriff's Department observed a slow moving pick-up truck pull into a gas station at approximately 3:30 a.m. The gas station was closed at the time. Visser went around the block, and on his return, he noticed a person standing outside of the truck who appeared to be digging for something on the truck's floorboard. Without turning on his blue and red emergency lights or his siren, Visser pulled into the gas station.
. Visser got out of his squad and approached the driver's side of the vehicle where he saw Kratochwill, who was then sitting behind the wheel of the truck. Visser immediately noticed a strong odor of intoxicants coming from inside the vehicle. He also noticed a woman, later identified as Janet Conley, sitting on the passenger side. Conley had a cut above her left eye and had a lot of blood on her shirt. Visser asked Conley to step from the vehicle and took her toward the back of the truck to inquire about the cut. Visser then asked Kratochwill how Conley had been injured. In conversing with Kratochwill, Visser detected a strong odor of intoxicants coming from Kratochwill's breath, and observed that his speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Visser asked Kratochwill to exit the vehicle and when he did, Visser observed that he was unsteady on his feet and that he staggered. After making these observations, Visser administered field sobriety tests to Kratochwill and subsequently arrested him for OMVWI.
. Kratochwill filed a motion to suppress all evidence relating to the encounter claiming that Visser did not have reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed when he approached Kratochwill's vehicle in the parking lot. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that entering a parking lot that was open to the public was not a stop for Fourth Amendment purposes. Kratochwill appeals.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review.
. When we review a motion to suppress evidence, we will uphold the circuit court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2); State v. Eckert, 203 Wis. 2d 497, 518, 553 N.W.2d 539, 547 (Ct. App. 1996). However, the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found is a question of law which we decide without deference to the circuit court's decision. See State v. Patricia A.P., 195 Wis. 2d 855, 862, 537 N.W.2d 47, 49-50 (Ct. App. 1995).
Moment of Fourth Amendment Seizure.
. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. The detention of a motorist by a law enforcement officer constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Berk
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|