COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 28, 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 WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT II |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eric J. Martin,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 BROWN, C.J.[1] This is a “weaving within one’s own lane”
case. Predictably, Eric J. Martin
propounds that State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301
¶2 Approximately 2:13 a.m. on November 15, 2008, early Saturday
morning, about fifteen minutes before bar closing time, a lieutenant for the
Menasha police department got behind Martin while traveling on
¶3 Martin’s appellate brief is basically a comparison of the above facts with the facts in Post. He points out, for example, that the driver in Post was driving at least partially in the unmarked parking lane. He also explains that the roadway in which Post was driving was 22-24 feet wide, twice as wide as the 10-12 feet in his own case. He further notes that Post was seen driving in an “S-type” pattern down the highway and that is missing in his case.[2] Based on these differences, he contends that “compared to Post (which the State concedes was more outrageous than the facts here) … [there was no] reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.”
¶4 But as we said at the top of our opinion, the facts in Post do
not provide the postulate by which all “weaving within one’s own lane” cases
are gauged. Rather, each case stands on
its own facts and is guided by the common sense test of whether “a reasonable
police officer, in light of his or her training and experience, [would] suspect
that the individual has committed, was committing, or is about to commit a crime.” State v. Post, 301
¶5 And here, it is evident that the lieutenant reasonably suspected that he had a drunk driver in front of him. The time was about fifteen minutes before bar closing on an early Saturday morning. The lieutenant saw weaving almost from the moment that he first pulled in behind Martin. This weaving continued for a full mile. While Martin may have successfully avoided crossing the center line or the fog line, the lieutenant observed that Martin was going “back and forth” between the two lines for the whole mile that he followed him. And on one occasion, he almost hit a curb. A reasonable police officer could easily suspect that Martin was intoxicated. In fact, a reasonable citizen could come to the same conclusion. This case is not close. We affirm.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This
opinion will not be published in the official reports. See
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(f) (2007-08). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2007-08 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] He also comments that the lieutenant did not accuse him of driving at varying speeds or speeding or driving too slowly or swerving or failing to properly signal a lane change.