 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Dane v. Pernot11/2/2000
2d 488, 504-05, 520 N.W.2d 923 (Ct. App. 1994). The deputy's observation of Pernot's vehicle crossing over the highway fog line at or near "bar time," and its subsequent entrance into a largely deserted parking lot adjacent to closed businesses, support the deputy's reasonable suspicion that Pernot might be OMVWI.
. The reasonableness of a stop depends on "all the facts and circumstances that are present at the time of the stop." State v. King, 175 Wis. 2d 146, 152, 499 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1993). We agree with the trial court that the stop did not occur until the deputy caught up with Pernot after he had left his vehicle and walked to the rear of the closed tavern. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) (No seizure occurs when a "subject does not yield" to a show of authority; one who "continues to flee" after an officer has yelled "`Stop, in the name of the law!'" has not yet been seized.).
. Prior to the time of the stop, the deputy had observed Pernot engage in suspicious behavior. The deputy testified that he saw no external reason for Pernot's swerve outside the fog line. Although he testified that there could have been several reasons for it other than intoxication (including tiredness, reaching for an object, or a vehicle alignment problem), the deputy was not required to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior before stopping Pernot. See State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990). In order to determine what is reasonable under the circumstances, we must inquire, "What would a reasonable officer reasonably suspect in light of his or her training and experience?" Id. at 83-84. Based on his eight years of experience as a deputy with the Dane County Sheriff's Department, he knew that impaired drivers are often on the road at 2 a.m. and could reasonably suspect that Pernot was driving while impaired after observing the vehicle maneuver outside the fog line.
. Pernot engaged in further suspicious activity when he turned into the strip mall parking lot, where all the businesses were apparently closed for the night, and when he failed to stop when the deputy activated his emergency lights and then called for him to stop. See U.S. v. Rickus, 737 F.2d 360, 365 (3rd Cir. 1984) (concluding that "traveling through a closed business district at 3:30 in the morning at a speed 15-20 miles per hour below the posted speed limit" is a factor in assessing reasonable suspicion); U.S. v. Buckhannon, 975 F. Supp. 1432, 1434 (D. Kan. 1997) (citing " number of cases [which] have found reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle which has parked near a closed business late at night when the defendant engages in suspicious behavior when he or she becomes aware of the officer's presence.").
. Suspicious activity is often "ambiguous ... the principal function of the investigative stop is to quickly resolve the ambiguity and establish whether the suspect's activity is legal or illegal." State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 835, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989). The deputy observed possible impaired driving and a suspicious entrance into a largely deserted parking lot at 2 a.m., followed by Pernot's initial failure to heed the deputy's signals to stop. We conclude that these articulable facts justified the investigative stop.
CONCLUSION
. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the appealed judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
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.
|
|