 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jefferson v. Kimpel4/13/2000
Cornelia G. Clark, Clerk Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Jefferson County: JOHN ULLSVIK, Judge. Affirmed.
. Glenn Kimpel appeals from a judgment convicting him of driving with a prohibited level of alcohol in his blood, carrying open intoxicants in a vehicle, and operating without a valid driver's license. He argues (a) that the arresting officers lacked reasonable grounds to stop his vehicle and, alternatively, (b) that the lack of a "fresh pursuit" renders the officers' "extra-jurisdictional" traffic stop unlawful. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
. The facts are not in dispute. Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputies R.W. Meyer and M.A. Gray, responding to an emergency dispatch, were driving on Interstate 94 in Jefferson County with their car's lights and siren activated. According to the officers, a gold Mercury sedan traveling ahead of them in the passing lane did not promptly yield to their signals. They testified that they followed the vehicle in the passing lane, sometimes approaching to within 50-70 feet, for approximately two- to three-tenths of a mile before it finally pulled to the right to allow them to pass. They said that other traffic to the front and rear of the Mercury promptly yielded to their signals. Deputy Meyer saw a "very noticeable" and "excessive" weaving by the Mercury within the lane while they were behind it, and observed the driver of the car appearing to be drinking from a can. He says that when the Mercury eventually yielded to the deputies' car, it did so abruptly, "cut[ting] in front of another car." He believed it to be an unsafe lane deviation.
. A few minutes later, the emergency call to which the deputies were responding was canceled by the dispatcher, and they pulled into a "crossover" area on the highway to wait for the Mercury to come by. While they were doing so, the Mercury passed them and Meyer noted his surprise that it had gotten there so quickly, concluding that the driver must have been driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit. The deputies activated the lights and siren and followed the Mercury, noting that it was again weaving within the traffic lane. At this point, they were about three miles from the Jefferson/Waukesha County line. By the time they stopped the car, they had crossed the line into Waukesha County. They identified Kimpel as the driver of the car and eventually arrested him for operating while intoxicated. A subsequent blood test revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of .228%, and the companion charge of operating with a prohibited blood alcohol level was filed against Kimpel.
. Kimpel moved to suppress all evidence, and the arrest itself, on the same grounds he advances on this appeal. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the deputies had a reasonable suspicion that Kimpel was driving while intoxicated, and that they were engaged in a continuous pursuit of Kimpel into Waukesha County. The case was tried on stipulated facts and Kimpel was found guilty of the charges noted above.
. Kimpel argues first that the deputies lacked "reasonable grounds" to believe that he had committed, or was committing, a traffic-law violation before they stopped him. And he says that " nly if this ... requirement is met ... should the court proceed to determine whether the [officers were] in fresh pursuit" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 175.40(2) (1997-98), which permits a police officer, when in "fresh pursuit" of a suspect, to arrest that suspect in an adja
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|