COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 27, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-2692-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT II
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PETER F. NEWKIRK,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Waukesha County:
LEE S. DREYFUS, JR., Judge. Affirmed.
NETTESHEIM, J. Peter
F. Newkirk appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated pursuant to § 346.63(1)(a), Stats. Newkirk
contends that information provided to the arresting officer from an anonymous
informant did not provide sufficient reliable information to justify the
officer's initial stop and detention of Newkirk. We disagree. We affirm
the judgment.
The evidence is not
disputed. An anonymous informant telephoned
the City of Muskego Police Department, reporting that a possibly intoxicated
driver was heading west on County Trunk Highway L, also known as Janesville
Road. The informant also reported that
the suspect vehicle was a truck or pickup truck and provided a partial license
plate number of “38880.”
The police dispatcher
relayed this information to City of Muskego Police Officer Timothy Esser. Within a few minutes of receiving the
information, Esser observed a blue pickup truck with license plate number
BE38880 westbound on County Trunk Highway L.
After following the vehicle for about one-half mile, Esser stopped the
vehicle and eventually arrested Newkirk for OWI.
Newkirk brought a motion
to suppress evidence gleaned as a result of his arrest. He contended that Esser did not have a
reasonable and articulable suspicion for stopping his vehicle under Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), because the anonymous informant's
information was not sufficiently reliable.
The trial court denied Newkirk's motion.[1]
An anonymous tip,
without more, cannot justify an investigative stop. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329 (1990). However, when the details of the anonymous
informant's predictions can be verified, there is reason to believe that the
caller is honest and well-informed about the illegal activity. Id. at 331-32. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that
when significant aspects of an anonymous tip are independently corroborated by
the police, the inference arises that the anonymous informant is telling the
truth. State v. Richardson,
156 Wis.2d 128, 142, 456 N.W.2d 830, 836 (1990); see also State v.
Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Ct. App. 1991).
Here, the anonymous
informant correctly reported the type of vehicle involved, the roadway on which
the vehicle was traveling, the direction of travel and a portion of the license
plate number. This established that the
anonymous informant's information was likely based on recent and reliable
perceptions or information. This gave
Esser a reasonable and articulable suspicion for stopping the vehicle. See Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1 (1968).
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.