COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 31, 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. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amanda Y.
Subert, Defendant-Respondent. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for
¶1 BRUNNER, J.[1] The State appeals an order suppressing evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The State contends the circuit court erroneously concluded there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. We agree with the State, concluding there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.
BACKGROUND
¶2 At approximately 1:45 a.m. on April 24, 2008, Appleton Police
Officer Jeffrey Miller was observing the Fire Alarm night club’s parking lot. He noticed a car make a “very odd” left-hand
turn out of the parking lot onto
¶3 Miller followed the car onto
¶4 Miller followed the car as it turned off
¶5 Amanda Subert was driving the car. She was ultimately charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration, both as second offenses. Subert moved to suppress evidence obtained from the traffic stop. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding Miller did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop:
Based upon the way I hear
the testimony, the crossing of the white line on a lane that she was in
certainly wasn’t egregious or he would have stopped her then. You’re right, the turn into
DISCUSSION
¶6 To perform an investigatory traffic stop, an officer must
have a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped has committed, or is about
to commit, a law violation. State
v. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25, ¶11, 260
¶7 For an investigatory stop to be constitutionally valid, the
officer’s suspicion must be based upon “specific and articulable facts which,
taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
the intrusion” on a citizen’s liberty. Terry
v.
¶8 We conclude there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic
stop. After Subert’s awkward turn onto
¶9 Miller then observed Subert pull into a driveway, turn off
her car’s headlights, and sit for a few minutes before pulling back out of the
driveway. Miller did not see anyone
enter or exit the vehicle, indicating the car might be attempting to elude
Miller. All of these observations
occurred after Subert left a night club at 1:45 a.m. When the circumstances are viewed in their
totality, they support a reasonable suspicion that Subert was operating her
vehicle while intoxicated. See Waldner, 206
By the Court.—Order reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
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 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.