 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jefferson v. Kimpel4/13/2000
nking from a can, his failure to respond to the officers' lights and sirens, and his abrupt, seemingly dangerous swerve into the outside lane once he noticed the officers' presence. As indicated, the fresh pursuit rule doesn't require continuous surveillance, and it permits delays in the officers' actions as long as those delays are not "unnecessary."
. It appears, then, that the officers were in the following position: they had made observations constituting reasonable grounds to believe Kimpel was violating one or more traffic laws, but were unable to apprehend him immediately because they were responding to an emergency dispatch; they observed him again several minutes later, after the dispatch had been canceled, and began to follow him, losing sight of him for a time and finally pulling him over in Waukesha County. It is not unlike a situation where an officer observes a suspect engaging in conduct giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that a crime is or has been committed, but contact is lost through no fault of the officer's-perhaps the suspect turns a corner, or temporarily eludes the officer. If, a short time later, the officer sees the suspect from a distance, and begins to pursue him, losing sight of him for a time, and finally catches up to him after crossing the line into another jurisdiction, we don't think the officers' pursuit has lost its "freshness" any more than the pursuit in this case.
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This opinion will not be published.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.
|
|