 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Dane v. Pernot11/2/2000
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: ROBERT DeCHAMBEAU, Judge.
Affirmed.
. Scott Pernot appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OMVWI). He claims the arresting deputy did not have the reasonable suspicion required for a police stop, and that the trial court consequently erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence acquired after the stop. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
. The arresting deputy was the only witness to testify at the hearing on Pernot's motion to suppress, and he was not cross-examined. The facts are thus not in dispute.
. At approximately 2 a.m., a Dane County Sheriff's Deputy noticed the passenger-side tires of an approaching vehicle "completely" cross the white fog stripe on a rural county highway by "three to six inches." The deputy testified that there could have been "numerous" reasons that the vehicle crossed the fog line, but he thought that the driver could have been intoxicated because " tatistically there is a higher number of impaired drivers on the road at that time [2 a.m.]." The deputy turned around and followed the vehicle. He did not observe any obstructions in the road that would have required the driver of the vehicle to cross the fog line.
. While the deputy was following the vehicle, the driver (later identified as Pernot) turned into a strip mall, located at the northern limit of the Village of Oregon. All of the businesses in the mall appeared to have been closed. At this point, the deputy caught up with Pernot's vehicle, activated his emergency lights, and pulled into the lot. Pernot did not stop his vehicle but continued through the lot toward the rear of a tavern. He stopped near the rear or side door of the bar, got out of his vehicle, and walked to the door. The deputy stopped near Pernot's vehicle and yelled twice for Pernot to stop, but he did not do so. Pernot tried to open the bar's door, but it was locked, and he waited at the door as the deputy approached.
. Pernot moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop, claiming that the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to make the stop. The court denied the motion, and after a stipulated trial, found Pernot guilty of both OMVWI and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Pernot appeals the subsequently entered judgment of conviction.
ANALYSIS
. 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 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). Here, the facts are undisputed. Whether these facts add up to reasonable suspicion is a question of law which we review de novo. See State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).
. An officer must have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity in order to justify an investigative stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); Wis. Stat. § 968.24. Reasonable suspicion is based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant intrusion." Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. Reasonableness is an objective standard that is measured by looking at the "totality of the circumstances." Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d at 139.
. Pernot argues that the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop. We conclude, however, that the deputy's decision to stop Pernot was based on more than a "mere hunch." See State v. Angiolo, 186 Wis.
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|