 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Nguyen4/1/2003
17. The facts known to the police department were sufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest. Id. at 626. Because the "police force is considered as a unit," the facts constituting probable cause were imputed to the arresting officer acting in concert with the department. Id. at 625.
. Information given by citizen informants may provide a basis for reasonable suspicion. This information "should exhibit reasonable indicia of reliability." State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, , 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516. Reliability of information depends upon the informant's veracity and basis of knowledge. Id.
. Nguyen argues that the evidence at the suppression hearing showed there was insufficient collective information to justify the stop. The State argues that the informant was reliable and that the informant's information was reliable. However, the State's argument is entirely dependent on testimony from later proceedings. Here, the court reached a decision based on the evidence at the suppression hearing and that is the evidence we review.
. Neither the informant nor the dispatcher testified at the suppression hearing. The only testimony came from Oehmke, who stated that the dispatcher merely gave out the descriptions and license plate numbers of the cars and stated that the drivers were possibly intoxicated. Oehmke did not himself observe any erratic or illegal activity. The dispatch did not provide any basis for the conclusion that the drivers were possibly intoxicated. Because Oehmke was the only one to testify, his testimony represents the only evidence on the collective information of the police department and the only information regarding the informant.
. If this case did not involve an informant and the dispatch, but rather direct testimony from Oehmke that the driver of this vehicle was possibly intoxicated, we would insist on knowing why he reached that conclusion. If he only testified to the conclusion, and not the facts underlying the conclusion, the stop could not be upheld. An officer must rely on articulable facts, not just conclusions. When a stop involves information from an informant or collective knowledge of the police department, the State is not relieved of its burden. Somewhere along the way it must present facts, not just conclusions, to support a reasonable suspicion to stop. We agree with Nguyen that the record at the suppression hearing did not show that there was a reasonable suspicion that Nguyen was driving while intoxicated.
By the Court. -- Judgment reversed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|