 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Village of Oregon v. Sunday5/15/2003
973, 978-79 (10th Cir. 1996) (single incident in which truck crossed fog line by about two feet); United States v. Ochoa, 4 F. Supp. 2d 1007, 1011-13 (D. Kan. 1998) (vehicle drifted one time onto shoulder and immediately corrected); Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (vehicle drifted undetermined distance over fog line three times for an undetermined amount of time); Rowe v. State, 769 A.2d 879, 884-89 (Md. 2001) (vehicle momentarily crossed fog line one time and later touched the fog line during a 1.2 mile observation of the vehicle). However, these cases addressed whether the observations violated the respective states' traffic laws. We have already concluded that Sunday's behavior did not violate Wisconsin's traffic laws.
. In the case which is the most factually similar, Crooks, it appears the court gave short shrift to consideration of intoxication because the officer did not think the driver was intoxicated. See Crooks, 710 So. 2d at 1042. Similarly, in Gregory, the court rejected reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving because the officer did not intend to investigate whether the driver was intoxicated. See Gregory, 79 F.3d at 978. The court in Ochoa also talks of the officer's "concerns" but less clearly relies on the officer's subjective beliefs. See Ochoa, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 1012. All three cases reveal a lack of understanding of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence because the officer's subjective belief is irrelevant.
. In Rowe, the court noted that the State argued that the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was driving while intoxicated. See Rowe, 769 A.2d at 889. However, rather than address whether the driver might have been intoxicated, that court instead considered whether the officer could have stopped the vehicle under the officer's "community caretaker function," which allows an "officer stop a vehicle to ensure the safety of the occupant without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." See id. at 889-90. In this case, the Village does not suggest that the officer could have stopped the vehicle under the "community caretaker function," and we do not address the issue.
. More importantly, all four cases are distinguishable on their facts. There is no bright line between reasonable suspicion and no reasonable suspicion. We conclude that the facts in this case are somewhat more suspicious than the facts in any of the four out-of-state cases. In this case, perhaps if the only evidence were that Sunday straddled the right fog line by an unspecified amount three times, we would reach a different result. But here, the evidence includes an apparent quick correction when Sunday was straddling the dotted white line between her lane and the exit lane.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|