|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 15, 2012 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.� 2010CT547 |
|||
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN� |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
|
DISTRICT II |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
State of Wisconsin, ��������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ���� v. Jordan T. Griffith, ��������� Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|
|||
����������� APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County:� karen l. seifert, Judge.� Affirmed.� ��
�1������� REILLY, J.[1]�� Jordan T. Griffith appeals his judgment of conviction for operating while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI).� Griffith argues that there was not reasonable suspicion to support the traffic stop that led to his arrest and conviction.� We disagree and affirm.� ���
BACKGROUND
�2������� A little after 1:30 a.m. on April 17, 2010, Deputy Duane Luker of the Winnebago County Sheriff�s Department observed a pickup truck driven by Griffith on Highway 45 cross over the painted white fog line by about six inches.� Later, Luker witnessed Griffith cross the center line of traffic.� Luker pulled over Griffith and subsequently arrested him for OWI.�
�3������� Griffith filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that Luker
did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Griffith�s truck.� The circuit court denied the motion to
suppress.� Luker was convicted of OWI and
now appeals.�
STANDARD OF REVIEW
�4������� When we review a circuit court�s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we apply the clearly erroneous standard to the court�s factual findings.� State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, �9, 331 Wis. 2d 431, 793 N.W.2d 920 (WI App 2010).� Our review of the circuit court�s application of constitutional principles to those facts, however, is de novo.� Id.�
�5������� In order for an investigatory stop to be justified by
reasonable suspicion, the officer must have a ��particularized and objective
basis� for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.�� State v. Walli, 2011 WI App 86, �9,
334 Wis. 2d 402, 799 N.W.2d 898 (citation omitted).� The officer�s reasonable suspicion that an
individual was or is violating the law must be grounded in specific and
articulable facts and reasonable inferences from those facts.� Id.�
We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if there was
reasonable suspicion.� Id.�
DISCUSSION
�6������� Griffith�s only argument on appeal is that there was not enough evidence to support the circuit court�s finding that Deputy Luker had reasonable suspicion.� The record contains sufficient evidence to support the circuit court�s finding.� Luker testified that Griffith crossed over a fog line by about six inches on the right side of the road and that Griffith crossed over the center line of traffic.� Griffith complains that Luker did not mention �whether the movements were gradual or abrupt, or for a short or longer distance.�� Those facts are not dispositive as to the question of whether there was reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances.� Given the erratic nature of Griffith�s driving, it was reasonable for Luker to suspect that Griffith was drinking and driving.� Griffith�s conviction is affirmed.
����������� By the Court.�Judgment and order 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)(f) (2009-10).� All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.