COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 27, 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 II |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
City of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Terry A. Craig,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
¶1 ANDERSON, P.J.[1] Terry Craig appeals from an order affirming the municipal court’s judgment of conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense, under Wis. Stat. § 346.63(1)(a). Craig argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. We conclude there was reasonable suspicion. We affirm the order.
¶2 On February 8, 2006, at approximately 1:52 a.m., a police
officer witnessed Craig’s vehicle traveling the wrong direction on a one-way
driveway. The driveway was part of the
Mill Race parking lot in the City of
¶3 The Mill Race parking lot is
owned by the City of
¶4 Whether the signs were official signs does not impact the analysis in this case, so we will assume the signs were not official signs.
¶5 Craig moved to suppress evidence of his operating a motor
vehicle under the influence obtained after the officer made the traffic
stop. At the motion hearing, the police
officer testified that she observed Craig’s vehicle driving the wrong way on a
one-way driveway. The police officer
also testified that Craig’s vehicle failed to stop at the sidewalk exiting the
Mill Race parking lot on to
¶6 Craig argues that
¶7 When we review a motion to suppress, we uphold the circuit
court’s findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Horngren, 2000 WI App
177, ¶7, 238
¶8 Temporarily detaining individuals during a traffic stop
qualifies as a seizure of persons within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment. Whren v.
¶9 Reasonable suspicion exists when facts and circumstances
known to the officer would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the
defendant committed a crime. State
v. Post, 2007 WI 60, ¶13, 301
¶10 Failure to adhere to official traffic signs is a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.04(2). The officer observed Craig violating traffic signs that resembled official signs. Nothing indicated that the signs were not official signs. A reasonable officer could believe the traffic signs in the Mill Race parking lot were official traffic signs. Therefore, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Craig had committed a crime.
¶11 Craig argues that Longcore’s “mistake of law” holding
is relevant to this case. See Longcore,
226
¶12 We conclude that, although the officer’s belief that the traffic signs were official may be mistaken, it was reasonable under the circumstances. As such, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe Craig violated Wis. Stat. § 346.04(2). Therefore, we affirm.
By the Court.—Order affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This is a one-judge appeal pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(g) (2005-06). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.