 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] County of Jefferson v. Lynch4/24/2003
. Sean Lynch appeals the judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of an ordinance adopting Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). He contends the trial court erred in concluding that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. We affirm.
. Kenneth Tennies, deputy sheriff for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, testified at the hearing on Lynch's motion to suppress evidence as follows. He was on duty the evening of October 6, 2001, and was stopped on Christberg Road at a stop sign waiting to turn onto Highway 18. A vehicle that was traveling westbound on Highway 18 turned off the highway, driving directly toward the officer's squad car, came to a sudden stop, then turned around and pulled up next to the officer's car. Both the driver of the vehicle and a passenger told the officer to go after the car that just passed because they thought he was a drunk driver, since he was "all over the road." They indicated the car was driving westbound on Highway 18. They also indicated that they had been attempting to contact dispatch, but when they saw the officer's squad car they decided to stop and talk to him instead of calling in. The startling manner in which this vehicle approached him indicated to the officer that the driver and passenger were in a hurry to give him this information. He told them to call dispatch to give them their phone number, and they indicated to him that they were going to do that. The officer immediately took off to catch up to the vehicle they described.
. The officer did not see the vehicle they were referring to while they were talking to him, but after he pulled out onto the highway, in less than a minute, he saw a vehicle driving west on Highway 18. He saw no other vehicles. He caught up to approximately four to five car lengths from this vehicle. He observed the vehicle driving onto the centerline while going up a hill, and then on the downside of the hill driving onto the fog line; in between that time the vehicle was going back and forth between the fog line and the centerline. The officer did not observe anything unusual about the speed of the vehicle and he did not observe the vehicle traveling outside of its lane. He followed the vehicle for approximately one minute and then stopped it just as it was approaching the city limits of Jefferson. Lynch was the driver of the vehicle, and the officer subsequently arrested him for driving under the influence of an intoxicant.
. The only other witness at the hearing was a private investigator called by Lynch who testified that when one is stopped at the stop sign where the officer was, one can see only approximately 1,000 feet toward the west because the road curves to the right.
. The trial court concluded that the information given by the two citizens, coupled with the officer's observations of Lynch's vehicle within a minute, was sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. Accordingly, the trial court denied Lynch's motion to suppress evidence gathered after the stop.
. To execute a valid investigatory stop consistent with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, a law enforcement officer must reasonably suspect, in light of his or her experience, that some kind of criminal activity has taken or is taking place. State v. Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d 128, 139, 456 N.W.2d 830, 834 (1990). An investigatory stop is permissible when the person's conduct may constitute only a civil forfeiture. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 678, 478 N.W.2d 63, 65-66 (Ct. App. 1991). Upon stopping the individual, the officer may make reasonable inquiries to dispel or co
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|