COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 17, 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.�	2009AP75-CR	Cir. Ct. No.� 2007CF1078
STATE OF WISCONSIN���			IN COURT OF APPEALS
			DISTRICT III
State of Wisconsin, ��������� Plaintiff-Respondent, ���� v. Carmelo R. Dobberpuhl, ��������� Defendant-Appellant.

����������� APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County:� WILLIAM M. ATKINSON, Judge.� Affirmed.�

����������� Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ.

�1������� PER CURIAM.   Carmelo Dobberpuhl appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.� Dobberpuhl argues the evidence was obtained only after he was unlawfully seized.� We affirm.�

BACKGROUND

�2������� On October 22, 2007, officer Bradley Dernbach and special agent Al Hunsader went to the Excel Inn in the Village of Ashwaubenon to investigate a matter unrelated to their eventual contact with Dobberpuhl.� The manager told them that the night before a female guest came to the front desk to ask for extra towels and told the desk clerk her boyfriend had been shot.� The manager also told them another employee had seen a male guest�later identified as Dobberpuhl�wearing a wrapping on his arm.� The male guest also told the employee he had been shot.� Dernbach notified lieutenant Mike Haines of these reports, and Haines informed him he would send additional officers. �While waiting for backup, Dernbach and Hunsader surveilled Dobberpuhl�s room from the hallway.

�3������� While outside Dobberpuhl�s room, Dernbach heard a male voice telling someone �he was down in Chicago � looking for some shit.� And he was knocking on a side door, and then an individual came out and started firing off rounds, and he stated he was shot in the hand.�� Dernbach testified he did not want to confront Dobberpuhl in his room because he might have a weapon or try to destroy contraband.� Accordingly, Dernbach told Haines to call Dobberpuhl�s room from the front desk, inform Dobberpuhl an individual had just hit his car, and ask him to come down and look at the damage.�

�4������� As Dernbach planned, Dobberpuhl exited his room after receiving the phone call and proceeded toward the staircase.� Hunsader was at the top of the staircase in plain clothes and uniformed officers were stationed on the lower level.� Dobberpuhl asked Hunsader if he was the person who hit his vehicle.� Hunsader replied that he was.� Dobberpuhl then proceeded down the first two or three steps, but then turned around, said, �I don�t have time for this,� and attempted to return to his room. �Hunsader placed his hands on Dobberpuhl and identified himself as a police officer.� Dobberpuhl resisted, so Dernbach also approached and the officers wrestled him to the ground.� While Dobberpuhl was struggling with the officers, he dropped a cell phone and a sock.� Dernbach picked up the sock and detected several hard rocks, which he believed to be crack cocaine.� The officers arrested Dobberpuhl and executed a warrant to search his room, where they found marijuana, cocaine residue, and drug paraphernalia.

�5������� Dobberpuhl moved to suppress the evidence, arguing he was illegally seized when Hunsader and Dernbach stopped him from returning to his room.� The circuit court denied the motion, concluding the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Dobberpuhl after receiving multiple reports he had been shot.

DISCUSSION

�6������� There is no dispute that Dobberpuhl was seized when Hunsader placed his hands on Dobberpuhl and identified himself as a police officer.� Therefore, the only issue on appeal is whether this seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion.� When reviewing a circuit court�s ruling whether to suppress evidence, we uphold the circuit court�s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.� State v. Vorburger, 2002 WI 105, �32, 255 Wis. 2d 537, 648 N.W.2d 829.� The application of those facts to constitutional principles, however, is a question of law we decide independently.� Id.��

�7������� The United States and Wisconsin Constitutions both protect the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.� U.S. Const. Amend. IV, Wis. Const. art. I, � 11.� However, police may �in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior �.�� Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968).� To conduct a valid investigatory stop, �a police officer [must] reasonably suspect � that some kind of criminal activity has taken or is taking place.�� State v. Allen, 226 Wis. 2d 66, 71, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999) (citation omitted).� Such reasonable suspicion must be based on specific articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts.� Terry, 392 U.S. at 21.�

�8������� Dobberpuhl argues the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him because there was nothing suspicious about his attempt to return to his room.� He contends that because Hunsader was in plain clothes, as far as the officers knew, Dobberpuhl thought he was turning away from another citizen, not fleeing police officers.� The State counters that Dobberpuhl�s argument understates the facts that led the police to reasonably suspect Dobberpuhl had committed or was committing a crime.� We agree with the State.�

�9������� Prior to confronting Dobberpuhl, the officers received multiple reports Dobberpuhl had been shot and overheard him tell someone this occurred while looking for some �shit� in Chicago.� Indeed, it was these facts that initially aroused the officers� suspicions.� Dobberpuhl neither addresses these facts nor refutes the State�s argument they support the officers� reasonable belief Dobberpuhl had committed or was committing a crime.� He therefore concedes this argument.� See Charolais Breeding Ranches, Ltd. v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979) (arguments not refuted are deemed conceded).�

�10����� Dobberpuhl�s argument that his conduct was not evasive because he did not know officers were present is unsupported by the record.� Dobberpuhl did not testify.� Dernbach, however, testified he believed Dobberpuhl attempted to leave after seeing the uniformed officers.� Because it is undisputed there were uniformed officers within Dobberpuhl�s view, it is reasonable to infer he attempted to leave because he saw them�particularly in light of the lack of testimony to the contrary.�

�11����� In any event, the officers� reasonable suspicion to detain Dobberpuhl does not hinge on whether he was actually attempting to evade police.� The reasonableness of an investigatory stop �depends on the totality of the circumstances.�� State v. Richardson, 156 Wis. 2d 128, 139-40, 456 N.W.2d 830 (1990).� Here, the officers seized Dobberpuhl only after receiving multiple reports he had a gunshot wound, overhearing him talking about the wound being related to looking for �shit,� and observing what they believed was an attempt to evade contact with law enforcement.� The essential question, then, is whether they could reasonably conclude Dobberpuhl was committing or had committed a crime �under all [of these] facts and circumstances �.�� State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 831, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989) (emphasis added).� We conclude they could.�

����������� By the Court.�Judgment affirmed.�

����������� This opinion will not be published.� See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.