 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Village of Oregon v. Sunday5/15/2003
. Robyn R. Sunday appeals a judgment of the trial court finding her guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant as a first offense. Sunday's argument on appeal is that the stop of her vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion and that, therefore, her motion to suppress evidence should have been granted. We disagree and affirm.
Background
. This case concerns Sunday's arrest on September 6, 2000, for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. Following her arrest, Sunday moved to suppress evidence on the ground that the arresting officer did not possess a reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop that led to her arrest.
. At the suppression hearing, the arresting officer testified to the following. On September 6, 2000, the officer was following a vehicle driven by Sunday on Highway 14. The officer observed Sunday's vehicle "veer " to the right, causing her passenger side tires to cross the white fog line by about a foot. Sunday's vehicle straddled the white fog line for about 100 to 150 feet before returning to its traffic lane. The officer continued to follow Sunday and observed her vehicle approach an exit lane on the right-hand side of the road, which was separated from the highway by a white dotted line. Sunday's vehicle's passenger side tires crossed over the white dotted line and straddled the dotted line for the length of the line, "and then right at the last second," Sunday's vehicle returned to its lane and continued on Highway 14. The officer continued to follow Sunday as the highway curved to the right. Sunday's vehicle "cut the [curve] a little sharp, and again the tires crossed the white fog line" for the length of the curve. Sunday's vehicle did not touch the gravel on the side of the highway and, apart from the observations above, the officer did not observe Sunday exhibit any erratic driving or swerving.
. Based on this information, the officer stopped Sunday and administered several field sobriety tests, which Sunday failed. The officer arrested Sunday for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. A subsequent intoximeter test of Sunday's breath yielded a blood alcohol content of .13%.
. The trial court denied Sunday's motion to suppress. Following a stipulated trial, the trial court found Sunday guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Discussion
. Sunday argues that the officer did not have a reasonable basis to suspect that she was committing a crime because she was not driving erratically and "merely crossed a fog line by a minuscule amount on three occasions." A law enforcement officer may lawfully conduct an investigatory stop if, based upon the officer's experience, he or she reasonably suspects "`that criminal activity may be afoot.'" State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, , 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). Reasonable suspicion is dependent on whether the officer's suspicion was grounded in specific, articulable facts, and reasonable inferences from those facts, that an individual was committing a crime. State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 55-56, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996). "The question of what constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under all the facts and circumstances present, what would a reasonable police officer reasonably suspect in light of his or her training and experience." State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997). When considering whether reasonable suspicion exists, an officer is not required to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|