|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED FEBRUARY 11, 1997 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62(1), Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-2526-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LOUIS E. MEHOJAH,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Brown County:
VIVI L. DILWEG, Judge. Affirmed.
LaROCQUE, J. Louis Mehojah appeals a judgment of
conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his operating privileges were
revoked (third offense criminal). He
contends that the officer did not have a sufficient evidentiary basis to make a
Terry stop.[1] This court affirms.
The evidence at the
suppression hearing reveals the following.
Sergeant Owen Somers of the Oneida Police Department knew Mehojah prior
to the arrest. About a week prior to
the arrest, Somers had been dispatched to the Mehojah residence on an unrelated
matter and talked to Mehojah's live-in girlfriend. Somers had "run the plate" on a vehicle parked at the
residence and learned that Mehojah owned the vehicle. He also learned that Mehojah was revoked as an habitual traffic
offender.
About a week later, near
dark, Somers saw the same vehicle being driven toward Green Bay on Mason
Street. He believed that the vehicle
had tinted glass, and "It was very difficult to positively I.D. the
driver." He ran a motor vehicle
check and learned that Mehojah was still revoked as an habitual traffic
offender. He stopped the vehicle,
identified the driver as Mehojah, and arrested him for driving after revocation.
Mehojah contends that
because Somers could not identify the driver of his vehicle, there was an
absence of sufficient evidence to justify a Terry stop. He argues that the officer had reason to
believe that any number of people other than Mehojah was the driver, especially
because Mehojah was revoked, and was living with his girlfriend.
A police officer is not
required to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior when conducting a Terry-type
stop. State v. Anderson,
155 Wis.2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763, 766 (1990).
More importantly, there is certainly a sufficient basis for a police
officer to have an articulable suspicion that a person who is revoked as an
habitual traffic offender is driving his own vehicle. The mere fact that the circumstances prevented an affirmative
identification of the driver is not grounds to invalidate a Terry
stop under the circumstances presented.
The trial court's decision denying the motion was not in error.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.