State v. Creviston10/21/1999
Marilyn L. Graves Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and Rule 809.62, Stats.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Sauk County: JAMES EVENSON, Judge. Affirmed.
Daniel E. Creviston appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of what he claims was his unlawful arrest for possessing open intoxicants, which, in turn, led to his arrest and conviction for driving while intoxicated. He argues that because the arrest for open intoxicants was not based on probable cause, it-and, as a result, his subsequent arrest for DWI-was unlawful. We are satisfied that probable cause existed for both arrests, and we therefore affirm the order.
. When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we defer to the trial court's factual findings, and will uphold them unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Dull, 211 Wis.2d 652, 655, 565 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Ct. App. 1997). However, whether those facts satisfy the constitutional standard is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d 128, 137-38, 456 N.W.2d 830, 833-34 (1990).
. Probable cause to arrest is a question frequently before us. In State v. Pozo, 198 Wis.2d 705, 544 N.W.2d 228 (Ct. App. 1995), we said that the concept of probable cause
... is neither a technical nor a legalistic concept; rather, it is a "flexible, common-sense measure of the plausibility of particular Conclusions about human behavior"-Conclusions that need not be unequivocally correct or even more likely correct than not. It is enough if they are sufficiently probable that reasonable people-not legal technicians-would be justified in acting on them in the practical affairs of everyday life. Id. at 711, 544 N.W.2d at 231(citations and quoted sources omitted).
. Probable cause to arrest exists where the officer, at the time of the arrest, has knowledge of facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable prudence to believe that the person arrested is committing, or has committed, an offense. As we have said-and as the very name implies-it is a test based on probabilities; and, as a result, the facts faced by the officer need only be sufficient to lead him or her to believe that guilt is more than a possibility. It is also a commonsense test. "The probabilities with which it deals are not technical: They are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men and women, not legal technicians, act." Dane County v. Sharpee, 154 Wis.2d 515, 518, 453 N.W.2d 508, 510 (Ct. App. 1990). The quantum of information which constitutes probable cause to arrest must be measured by the facts of the particular case, State v. Wilks, 117 Wis.2d 495, 502, 345 N.W.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 1984), and in making that measurement, we look to the totality of the circumstances within the officer's knowledge and at the place and time of the arrest. State v. Koch, 175 Wis.2d 684, 701, 499 N.W.2d 152, 161 (1993). Finally, it is well recognized that an officer's experience-based Conclusions may be considered in determining whether probable cause exists. State v. DeSmidt, 155 Wis.2d 119, 134-35, 454 N.W.2d 780, 787 (1990).
. In this case, the arresting officer, Sergeant David Hoege of the Reedsburg Police Department, testified that he received a dispatch at 2:40 a.m. indicating that a man had been seen leaving his car on a roadside and
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|