COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 21, 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. |
2006TR5868 |
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT IV |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel A. Knueppel,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from judgments of the circuit court for
¶1 BRIDGE, J.[1] Daniel A. Knueppel appeals judgments convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a) and of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(b). He contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the arresting officer lacked a reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. We disagree and affirm the judgments.
BACKGROUND
¶2
¶3 At the hearing on Knueppel’s motion, Deputy Ladik testified
as follows. Ladik was traveling
southbound on Highway 51 in the
¶4 The court found that the totality of the circumstances provided Ladik with sufficient facts and reasonable suspicion to stop Knueppel and conduct the investigation. Knueppel was subsequently convicted by the court of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration. Knueppel appeals.
DISCUSSION
¶5 This case requires an examination of whether there existed
reasonable suspicion to support a traffic stop.
The question of whether a traffic stop is reasonable is a question of
constitutional fact. State
v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶19, 285
¶6 The facts in this case are undisputed and neither party takes issue with any of the trial court’s factual findings. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record which would lead us to conclude that any of the trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous.
¶7 Applying the court’s factual findings to constitutional principles, we further conclude that Ladik had probable cause to stop Knueppel’s car. In Post, 301 Wis. 2d 1, ¶14, the supreme court held that weaving within one’s own lane was not alone sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to warrant a traffic stop. Knueppel argues that Post should govern in the present case because he was stopped for “slight” weaving within this lane of traffic and for momentarily crossing the fog line.
¶8 Knueppel is correct that under Post, weaving within his
own lane would not alone support a reasonable suspicion conclusion. The proper
determination of reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the
circumstances.
By the Court.—Judgments 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)(c) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.