 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Nguyen4/1/2003
. Dung Tran Nguyen appeals a judgment convicting him of operating after revocation and operating with a prohibited alcohol content. Nguyen argues that the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion based on the unlawfulness of the stop of the car he was driving. We agree and reverse the judgment.
BACKGROUND
. In the early morning of December 26, 1998, officer Robert Oehmke was on patrol in the City of Hudson. He heard a police dispatch that there were two possibly intoxicated drivers leaving the Amoco Auto Stop. The dispatch described the cars and identified their license plate numbers. Oehmke drove toward the Amoco Station and saw two cars matching the description. After confirming the license plate numbers given by the dispatcher, Oehmke activated his overhead lights and both cars pulled over.
. Nguyen, one of the drivers, was ultimately charged with operating after revocation, second offense; operating while intoxicated, third offense; operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, third offense. Before trial, Nguyen filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing the stop was unlawful.
. At the suppression hearing, Oehmke was the only witness. He described the contents of the dispatch: there were two possible intoxicated drivers, the general description of the cars, and the license plate numbers. He testified that he saw no erratic or illegal driving, and that he made the stop based on the dispatch.
. The court found the tip provided a reasonable basis to stop Nguyen's car, noting the possible danger to others if the drivers were indeed intoxicated. Nguyen moved for reconsideration, which the court also denied.
. Nguyen pled no contest to operating after revocation. A jury found Nguyen guilty of operating with a prohibited alcohol content. The operating while intoxicated charge was dismissed. Nguyen was sentenced to five days in jail and fined $300 for operating after revocation, and sixty days in jail and fined $1,162 on the alcohol charge. Nguyen appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. When reviewing a trial court's order denying a motion to suppress evidence, we will uphold the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, that is, against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d 128, 137, 456 N.W.2d 830 (1990). Whether the facts as found by the court meet statutory and constitutional standards is a question of law that we review de novo. See id. at 137-38.
DISCUSSION
. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. at 137. Wisconsin courts interpret the state constitution in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's interpretations of the search and seizure provisions under the federal constitution. State v. Fry, 131 Wis. 2d 153, 172, 388 N.W.2d 565 (1986).
. To stop a person, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 55, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996). Reasonable suspicion does not need to derive from personal knowledge. See State v. Mabra, 61 Wis. 2d 613, 625, 213 N.W.2d 545 (1974). An officer "may rely on all the collective information in the police department" as long as "there is police-channel communication to the arresting officer" and the officer acts in good faith. Id. Our supreme court reiterated this principle in Mabra, where an officer arrested the occupants of a vehicle because police dispatch stated the vehicle was involved in a crime. Id. at 6
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|