 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] County of Fond du Lac v. Reilly9/3/2003
. Conor D. Reilly appeals from his conviction for drunk driving. He argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion to suppress evidence because of a lack of reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. We hold that the officer had sufficient grounds for an investigative stop and so affirm.
. In the early morning hours of September 15, 2001, after bar-closing time, Lieutenant Kevin Galske of the Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department was driving an unmarked Chevy Tahoe when he saw the car Reilly was driving make a right turn without signaling and then accelerate rapidly. Galske followed. Reilly's car came to a stop at an intersection and a passenger began to get out of the car. Galske turned on his emergency lights. The passenger got back into the car, which continued past the stop sign and stopped. Further investigation led to Reilly's arrest for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
. The sole issue on appeal is whether Galske had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative or Terry stop. In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, this court will uphold the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Harris, 206 Wis. 2d 243, 249-50, 557 N.W.2d 245 (1996). Whether the facts meet the constitutional standard of reasonableness is a question of law which we review de novo. State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997).
. Reilly points out that his failure to signal a right turn was not a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.34(1)(b) because no other traffic on the road was affected by it. He also notes, equally correctly, that his passenger violated no law by alighting from the vehicle at the intersection. Galske had no radar in his car and testified that he did not hear tires squealing when Reilly's car accelerated at what appeared to Galske to be a high speed. However, conduct need not be unlawful to give rise to a reasonable inference that criminal activity is afoot. As our supreme court pointed out in State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996):
When an officer observes unlawful conduct there is no need for an investigative stop: the observation of unlawful conduct gives the officer probable cause for a lawful seizure .... The law of investigative stops allows police officers to stop a person when they have less than probable cause.
Id. at 59.
. A mere hunch will not suffice. Id. at 57. Police may infringe on an individual's right to be free of stop and detention only if they have a suspicion grounded in specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences from those facts that the individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime . Harris, 206 Wis. 2d at 259.
. The reasonable suspicion required to justify an investigative stop is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990). Suspicious conduct is by its nature ambiguous, and the principal function of the investigative stop is to resolve that ambiguity quickly. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990). Consequently, police are not required to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior before initiating a brief stop. Id. The focus of the Fourth Amendment and Wis. Stat. § 968.24 is reasonableness, a commonsense balancing of the individual's right to privacy with the interest
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|