 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Nelson11/24/1999
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 Walworth County: JAMES L. CARLSON, Judge. Affirmed.
.
Mark Nelson appeals from a denial of a motion to suppress all evidence obtained by the police relative to his arrest for driving while intoxicated on grounds that the police illegally stopped him. He argues that the police had no reasonable basis to conduct a Terry stop. We disagree and affirm.
. The facts are straightforward. Nelson stopped his vehicle in a radio station parking lot off of Highway 50 after his girlfriend told him that she urgently needed to "use the bathroom." He turned off his headlights and his girlfriend exited the car. She returned in two minutes. The total amount of time spent in the lot did not exceed five minutes. The time was about 1:30 a.m. Nelson proceeded on the highway for about a mile until he was pulled over by a sheriff's squad car.
. The sheriff's deputy who pulled Nelson over testified that, based on his knowledge, the radio station had gone out of business and had been closed for about two years. The deputy passed Nelson's vehicle while it was sitting in the parking lot. The deputy knew of ten or more complaints of prowler calls at a nursing home located directly across the street from the parking lot. In particular, the deputy himself had investigated an allegation made within the past year by a staff member that she had been attacked and cut. That incident and some of the others occurred during the deputy's shift: 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. After the car exited the parking lot, the officer followed and stopped it. The deputy eventually arrested Nelson for driving while intoxicated.
. Nelson argued to the trial court and argues here that the stop was illegal because the deputy lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion necessary for a valid Terry stop. Nelson asserts that the rural location cannot be considered a "high crime area" justifying a stop. He notes the deputy's belief that this had become a "high crime area" because of the prowler attacks, but claims that the deputy's belief is unjustified because the location is in a rural area and the prowler attacks were "several months" before this incident. He also argues that the prowler was on foot, suggesting a measure of secrecy, but this incident had to do with a car that was positioned in a nonsecretive manner.
. Nelson then contends that even if the deputy might have been reasonably suspicious of the car when it was parked in a lot whose business was closed, and even if the deputy reasonably concluded that the car was suspiciously close to the location where numerous prowler attacks had taken place, a stop was still not justified. Nelson asserts that the deputy's suspicions should have been allayed when the car did not exit in a fast manner, did not attempt to flee, and the operator of the vehicle did not drive erratically or break any traffic law. Nelson also notes that the deputy testified how there was no unusual activity. Finally, Nelson argues that once the deputy stopped the car and determined the reason for the stop, the officer's work was finished and he had no authority to continue the stop.
. We reject all of Nelson's contentions. First, we underscore that the question is not what, in hindsight, really was occurring in the parking lot that night. Inst
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|