COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 14, 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. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank Post,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment and an order of the circuit court for
¶1 HIGGINBOTHAM, P.J.[1] Frank Post appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant (OWI), fourth offense, and operating with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Post argues the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop, and therefore all evidence from the stop should be suppressed. We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, a citizen informant’s tip provided a sufficient factual basis to support the reasonableness of the stop. We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 During the afternoon of February 13, 2006, City of
¶3 Baney spotted a gray Dodge
¶4 Post brought a motion to dismiss, arguing the stop was not based on reasonable suspicion, which the circuit court denied. Post then pleaded no contest and was ordered to undergo an alcohol and drug assessment, sentenced to seventy-five days in jail, fined $2,983 and had his license revoked for thirty-four months. Post appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶5 To justify an investigatory stop, police must have reasonable
suspicion, grounded in specific, articulable facts and any reasonable
inferences drawn thereof, that an individual is violating or has violated the
law. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60
¶¶10-11, 301
¶6 Information contained in an informant’s tip will, in some
cases, provide a reasonable basis for an investigative stop. Adams v. Williams, 407
¶7 Post argues Baney did not have specific and articulable facts that a crime occurred when he was stopped. Post asserts that the citizen informant never gave dispatch a basis for believing Post was intoxicated, rendering the tip unreliable. He further asserts that Baney also did not observe the vehicle commit any traffic violations or identify any maintenance violations. Therefore, Post maintains, there was no reasonable basis for the stop and the circuit court should have suppressed any evidence resulting from the stop. We disagree.
¶8 We have concluded that a tip shows sufficient indicia of
reliability to justify an investigative stop when the informant identifies
himself or herself to the dispatcher, and police independently verify the
information provided by the informant before conducting the stop. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, ¶¶10-11,
247
¶9 We concluded in Sisk that the officer had reasonable
suspicion to execute an investigative stop of the defendant based upon the
caller giving information about the suspects and their location, which the
officers verified before stopping them, and upon the caller identifying
himself.
¶10 Like Sisk, the citizen informant in the present case identified himself or herself to the dispatcher. This factor alone is persuasive indicia of reliability because the informant could potentially be arrested if the tip proved to be fabricated. Wis. Stat. § 946.41 (Class A misdemeanor to knowingly give false information to a police officer while the officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority); Wis. Stat. § 146.70 (establishing a penalty for “prank” 911 calls).
¶11 Further, as in Sisk, the investigating officer
independently verified the information provided in the caller’s tip before
stopping Post. Baney observed a gray Dodge
¶12 Accordingly, we conclude that the tip in this case possessed a sufficient degree of reliability to justify the investigative stop because the informant identified himself or herself, and Baney independently verified the tipster’s information before conducting the stop. We therefore affirm.
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) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.