COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 29, 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 III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Paul T. Shefchek,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] Paul Shefchek appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, second offense. Shefchek argues the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On
August 15, 2007, a criminal complaint was filed charging Shefchek with
operating while under the influence of an intoxicant and operating a motor
vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, both as second offenses, and first
offense operating after revocation.
Shefchek filed a motion to suppress challenging the reasonable suspicion
for the stop.
¶3 At
the motion hearing, officer Robert Osborne testified that at about 2:00 a.m. on
July 14, 2007, he observed a truck traveling westbound on Highway 42/57 in
¶4 The
court concluded Osborne had reasonable suspicion to stop Shefchek and denied
Shefchek’s suppression motion. Shefchek then pled no contest to operating while
intoxicated, and the remaining charges were dismissed.
DISCUSSION
¶5 When
reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we uphold the court’s
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.
¶6 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
In order to make a constitutionally permissible investigative stop, an
officer must have reasonable suspicion that the driver of a vehicle has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, ¶14
n.5, 241
¶7 Shefchek
argues that under the totality of the circumstances, Osborne did not have reasonable
suspicion to stop him. Shefchek cites State
v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301
¶8 While
the weaving in this case apparently is not as substantial as in Post,
Shefchek also drove onto the yellow line.
Even more significant, this occurred “at or around ‘bar time.’”
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 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] While the trial court concluded that Shefchek changed lanes without signaling, Osborne’s testimony did not elaborate on whether Shefchek signaled before changing lanes.