COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 15, 2008
David R. Schanker 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. |
|
2003CF722 |
||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Courtney L. Cobbs,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before
¶1 PER CURIAM. Courtney Cobbs appeals a judgment, entered upon his guilty plea, convicting him of possession with intent to deliver cocaine as party to a crime. Cobbs challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. We reject Cobbs’s arguments and affirm the judgment.
Background
¶2 In Marathon County Circuit Court case No. 2003CF559, an Information charged Cobbs with possession with intent to deliver cocaine, possession with intent to deliver THC, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, obstructing an officer, two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and two drug tax stamp violations, all but the obstruction count as a repeater and as party to a crime. In Marathon County Circuit Court case No. 2003CF722, an Information charged Cobbs with one count of attempted escape and one count of criminal damage to property, both counts as party to a crime.
¶3 The circuit court denied Cobbs’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence. In exchange for his guilty plea to party to the crime of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges from both cases. Cobbs was convicted upon his guilty plea and sentenced to four years’ initial confinement and five years’ extended supervision. This appeal follows.
Discussion
¶4 Cobbs argues the circuit court erred by denying his pretrial
motion to suppress evidence. When reviewing
a ruling on a suppression motion, an appellate court “will uphold the circuit
court’s findings of fact unless they are against the great weight and clear
preponderance of the evidence.” State
v. Waldner, 206
¶5 Cobbs contends the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. At the suppression motion hearing, officers testified that while on patrol, they passed a mini-mart gas station and observed three black men and one white man standing near two vehicles. The officers became suspicious after noting that all of the men appeared to be “very nervous” and showed an overt interest in the passing of the marked squad car. The officers found an observation point behind a nearby business and observed the men with binoculars. Other than observing a bag passed from one vehicle to the other, the officers observed no other suspicious activity. The officers eventually followed the vehicles as they left the gas station and stopped one of the vehicles after seeing a violation of the littering statute—specifically, a lit cigarette thrown from the driver’s side window.
¶6 Cobbs argues that the officers’ stated rationale for the
stop—a violation of the littering statute—did not justify the stop because
littering is not a “traffic violation.” Cobbs,
however, provides no authority for his contention that the reasonable suspicion
must concern a traffic violation.
Officers may stop and detain individuals if they have reasonable
suspicion that the individual committed a crime. See
Terry
v.
¶7 Cobbs nevertheless claims that the stop of his vehicle was racially motivated. Although the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996), the record does not support Cobbs’s claim. The officers denied that race was a motivating factor for following and stopping the vehicle. The circuit court noted that “four young men of any race who nervously and suspiciously watch a passing squad car may give rise to the officers’ actions in following them[.]” Ultimately, the court found, based on the evidence, that race was not a factor. Cobbs has failed to establish that the circuit court’s finding was clearly erroneous.
¶8 Finally, Cobbs claims the search of his vehicle was unjustified
under the circumstances. We are not
persuaded. At the suppression motion
hearing, one of the officers testified that as he approached the vehicle after
the stop, he noticed a gun case, some loose ammunition and half a bottle of
alcohol on the rear seat. As the officer
reached the passenger-side window, the officer detected the odors of tobacco,
marijuana and alcohol. The officers
asked for canine assistance and, while waiting for assistance to arrive, the
officers conducted a preliminary search of the vehicle and found a sawed-off
shotgun. Cobbs and the other occupant of
the vehicle were then taken into custody and arrested for possession of this
illegal weapon. A subsequent search of
the vehicle revealed two pounds of marijuana and a golf ball-sized cache of
cocaine.
¶9 The
police may, under the proper circumstances, conduct a protective search of the
passenger compartment of a vehicle during a traffic stop.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.