COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED December 8, 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 III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Deanne M. Treml,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] Deanne Treml appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, third offense. Treml argues the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 Shortly after 3:00 a.m. on August 3, 2008, deputy Jason
Stuckart saw a vehicle leave the parking lot of an abandoned business in the
Town of
¶3 Treml moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop, arguing Stuckart lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her. The circuit court denied her motion. It concluded Stuckart’s observation of Treml leaving an abandoned parking lot at 3:00 in the morning and then weaving sharply within her lane of traffic provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.
DISCUSSION
¶4 A police officer may initiate an investigatory traffic stop
if “the facts of the case would warrant a reasonable police officer, in light
of his or her training and experience, to suspect that the individual has
committed, was committing, or is about to commit a crime.” State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, ¶13, 301
¶5 On appeal, Treml argues Stuckart failed to give specific details about why Treml’s driving was erratic, and that the description he did give was inadequate because, under Post, weaving within a single lane of traffic does not necessarily give rise to reasonable suspicion. We disagree.
¶6 First, we reject Treml’s assertion that Stuckart “provided no objective information concerning what, exactly, [her alleged erratic driving] entailed.” Stuckart’s testimony that Treml was “weaving sharply from side to side making corrections left to right and making very sharp turns” describes exactly what her driving entailed.
¶7 Second, we also reject Treml’s contention Post
requires more information than Stuckart provided here. In Post, a police officer stopped Post
after watching him “traveling in a smooth ‘S-type’ pattern” for two blocks
within an extra wide traffic lane at 9:30 p.m.
¶8 Here too, the totality of the circumstances provided Stuckart
with reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop.
Stuckart testified he had eight years of experience detecting drunk
drivers and that the weaving he observed indicated the driver was possibly
intoxicated. He specifically pointed to the
manner of Treml’s weaving, characterizing it as “sharp” corrections from side
to side of the lane that resembled the motion of a pinball. Further, the time of the incident—3:00 a.m—is
significant. In Post, the court noted
that while the time of an incident that occurred at 9:30 p.m. was “not as
significant as when poor driving takes place around ‘bar time,’ it does lend some
further credence to [the officer’s] suspicion that Post was driving while
intoxicated.”
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.