DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Kovars

6/27/2002

had been committed. We held that a slightly longer than normal stop at a stop sign, with nothing more, did not rise to the level of "specific and articulable facts" that Fields had committed an unlawful act. Id. at . Kovars argues that, as in Fields, the officer here only had a hunch that crime was afoot because all the officer knew was that two unidentified people arranged to have a truck pulled out of a ditch and then drove the truck away. Absent any poor driving, the officer had no justification for conducting an investigatory stop. We disagree.


. The officer in this case knew much more than the officer in Fields. The officer here knew that Kovars lived at the same residence as the truck owner and had been driving the vehicle earlier. He knew this residence was only a block away from the scene of the accident. It is reasonable to infer that Kovars owned the truck. Moreover, typically the person who drives a vehicle into a ditch or the owner of the vehicle is the person who calls a tow truck to get the vehicle out. Moreover, the officer had reason to believe Kovars was under the influence of intoxicants. When the officer made contact with Kovars earlier in the night, Kovars admitted he had been drinking. In addition, Kovars emitted an odor of intoxicants, had difficulty standing and maintaining his balance, and had jerky and bloodshot eyes.


. The fact that two persons entered the vehicle does not erase the officer's reasonable suspicion. Whether Kovars might have been a passenger is not relevant to our inquiry, because reasonable suspicion does not require an officer to rule out possible innocent behavior. The officer only had to have reason to suspect that one of the individuals entering the vehicle was intoxicated.


. We conclude that reasonable suspicion supported the traffic stop. Therefore, the circuit court correctly denied the motion to suppress.


By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.


This opinion will not be published. 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.

FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.