COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 24, 2009 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. |
2008TR433 |
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
City of
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathan R. Kreinbring,
Defendant-Respondent. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] The City of Washburn appeals an order granting Nathan Kreinbring’s suppression motion. The City argues the circuit court erred by concluding Kreinbring was seized when a police officer shined a spotlight on his car. We agree. We therefore reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The facts of this case are not disputed. While patrolling one night, officer Nicholas Suminski noticed an occupied, parked vehicle. When Suminski later encountered the same vehicle pulled over to the curb in a different location, he slowed down and shined his spotlight on it. He then stopped, exited his squad car, and approached the vehicle. Although he continued to shine his spotlight, he did not activate the car’s red and blue lights. As Suminski approached, Kreinbring rolled his window down. Suminski detected a strong odor of intoxicants, and asked Kreinbring whether he had had anything to drink. Kreinbring replied that he had. Suminski administered field sobriety tests, concluded Kreinbring was operating while intoxicated, and placed him under arrest. An Intoxilyzer test subsequently confirmed Kreinbring had a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
¶3 Kreinbring moved to suppress the evidence, arguing he was seized before Suminski had reasonable suspicion to stop him. The City did not dispute Suminski lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop, but argued Kreinbring was not seized when Suminski approached his parked car to question him. The circuit court disagreed. It held that Suminski’s spotlighting of Kreinbring’s vehicle was a seizure, and that Kreinbring was therefore seized before Suminski had reasonable suspicion.
DISCUSSION
¶4 “Whether evidence should be suppressed is a question of
constitutional fact.” State
v. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, ¶13, 299
¶5 The only issue before us is whether Suminski seized Kreinbring
by pulling up behind his parked car and illuminating it with a spotlight. A seizure occurs when “a person submit[s] to
a police show of authority [and] under all the circumstances surrounding the
incident, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.” State v. Young, 2006 WI 98, ¶37, 294
¶6 The City argues the circuit court erroneously based its conclusion on inferences about Suminski’s subjective intent. We agree.
¶7 In a written decision, the court stated: “[T]his is a case where the citing officer clearly made a decision to focus attention on the defendant’s vehicle…. The only evidence of why the officer was in that section of Washburn was because he decided to follow the defendant’s car.” Citing the lack of “a reasonable explanation for the use of [the] spotlight,” the court concluded “the most logical inference” was that Suminski “intended to show authority,” and “a reasonable person would respond to said authority by not feeling free to leave.”
¶8 The question of whether an officer’s actions constituted a
show of authority, however, is objective; the officer’s motives are
irrelevant. See State v. Luebeck, 2006 WI App 87, ¶12, 292
¶9 “[N]ot every display of police authority rises to a ‘show of
authority’ that constitutes a seizure.” Young,
294
¶10 An officer’s use of a spotlight when approaching an individual
in a vehicle does not itself transform the interaction into a seizure. Young, 294
¶11 Decisions from other jurisdictions also support the conclusion
that shining a spotlight on a parked car, by itself, is not a seizure. See United
States v. Steele, 782 F. Supp. 1301, 1312 (S.D. Ind. 1992) (officer’s
illumination of defendant with overhead lights “not objectively threatening or
coercive”); Baldwin v. Virginia, 413 S.E.2d 645,
649 (
¶12 Kreinbring’s brief focuses almost entirely on Suminski’s reasons for investigating Kreinbring’s car, and hyperbolically characterizes Suminski’s actions as “hunting or stalking” and “a fishing expedition.” Kreinbring misses the point. Suminski’s suspicions prior to his engagement with Kreinbring are neither disputed, nor the pertinent issue. Rather, the issue is simply whether Suminski’s illumination of Kreinbring’s parked vehicle with a spotlight was, viewed objectively, a show of authority which would lead a reasonable person to believe he or she was not free to leave. We conclude it was not.
By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded.
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). Furthermore, this is an expedited appeal
under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.17. All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless
otherwise noted.