|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 19, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing.� If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports.� A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.� See Wis. Stat. � 808.10 and Rule 809.62.� |
|
|
Appeal No.� |
Cir. Ct. No.� 2009CT246 |
|||
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN� |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
State of Wisconsin, ��������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ���� v. Cathy Ann Currie, ��������� Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|
|||
����������� APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas County:� KELLY J. THIMM, Judge.� Affirmed.�
�1������� HOOVER, P.J.[1] Cathy Ann Currie appeals a judgment of conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense.� She argues the officer lacked probable cause to stop her vehicle because he �mistakenly believed that [she] had violated a traffic law.�� We affirm.
BACKGROUND
�2������� Currie was charged with operating while intoxicated, third offense.� Currie brought a pretrial motion contesting the validity of the stop.� At the motion hearing, officer William Lear testified that on September 18, 2009, an anonymous caller reported an individual driving with an open intoxicant in the vehicle.� The caller provided the make, model, color, license plate number, and approximate location of the vehicle.� When Lear encountered a vehicle matching the description, he noticed the vehicle had �a very large air freshener hanging below the rearview mirror,� contrary to Wis. Stat. � 346.88(3)(b).[2]� Lear stopped the vehicle for this traffic violation, and subsequently arrested the driver, identified as Currie, for operating while intoxicated.
�3������� Currie testified she had a pair of felt hockey skates hanging from her rearview mirror, not an air freshener.� She explained the skates did not obstruct her view through the front windshield.�
�4������� The court found Lear�s testimony credible.� It determined that although an air freshener hanging from a rearview mirror does not obstruct the entire view, it �obstructs a clear view.�� The court found when Lear observed the air freshener, he had probable cause to believe Currie committed a traffic violation; therefore, the stop was valid.
DISCUSSION
�5������� On appeal, Currie argues that Lear did not have probable cause to believe she committed a traffic violation.� She asserts Lear only testified about the size of the air freshener and there was no evidence �about why this air freshener obstructed Currie�s �clear view.��
�6������� An officer may conduct a traffic stop when he or she has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. �State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, �13, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569.� Whether there is probable cause to conduct a traffic stop is a question of constitutional fact. �Id., �10. ��A finding of constitutional fact consists of the circuit court�s findings of historical fact, which we review under the �clearly erroneous standard,� and the application of these historical facts to constitutional principles, which we review de novo.� �Id.
�7������� Lear testified he stopped Currie because he observed �a very large air freshener� hanging from her rearview mirror.� The court determined that any object hanging from a rearview mirror would obstruct a driver�s clear view through the front of the windshield.� The court also found Lear�s testimony about his observations credible.� See State v. McCallum, 208 Wis. 2d 463, 488, 561 N.W.2d 707 (1997) (Credibility determinations are for the trial court.).�
�8������� We determine �a very large air freshener� hanging from the rearview mirror obstructs a driver�s clear view through the front windshield.� We conclude when Lear observed the air freshener, he had probable cause to believe Currie had violated Wis. Stat. � 346.88(3)(b).� Lear conducted a valid traffic stop on Currie�s vehicle.�
����������� By the Court.�Judgment affirmed.
����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. � 752.31(2).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Wisconsin Stat. � 346.88(3)(b) provides:� �No person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway with any object so placed or suspended in or upon the vehicle so as to obstruct the driver�s clear view through the front windshield.��