State v. Adell
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 2020AP2135-CR |
| Citation | 966 N.W.2d 115,399 Wis.2d 399,2021 WI App 72 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nicholas Reed ADELL, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Kara L. Janson, assistant attorney general, and Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Marcus Berghahn, of Hurley Burish, S.C., Madison.
Before Blanchard, P.J., Kloppenburg, and Nashold, JJ.
¶1 The State of Wisconsin appeals the circuit court's order granting Nicholas Reed Adell's motion to suppress evidence arising from a traffic stop. The circuit court determined that the arresting deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to administer field sobriety tests and, on that basis, granted Adell's motion to suppress the field sobriety test results and subsequent evidence of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration. The State argues that the circuit court erroneously granted the motion to suppress.
¶2 We conclude that the deputy properly extended the stop to investigate whether Adell was operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration because the totality of the facts and circumstances gave rise to reasonable suspicion of that offense, and that the deputy lawfully administered field sobriety tests in furtherance of that investigation because the tests were likely to support or dispel the deputy's suspicion. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's order and remand for further proceedings.
¶3 The State filed a criminal complaint charging Adell with fifth-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and fifth- or sixth-offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, based on evidence obtained following the extension of a traffic stop for speeding. Adell filed a suppression motion arguing that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended when the arresting deputy asked Adell to step out of the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. Adell sought suppression of all evidence obtained during and after the field sobriety tests.
¶4 The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing at which the arresting deputy, Brian Schlough, testified to the following facts, none of which are disputed on appeal.
¶5 At the time of the stop, Schlough had seventeen years of experience as a deputy with the Sauk County Sheriff's Department, had received training in investigating incidents of suspected operating while intoxicated, and had made about 150 arrests on charges of operating while intoxicated.
¶6 At 5:50 a.m. on August 1, 2019, a Thursday, Schlough made a traffic stop of a vehicle based on a radar reading showing that the vehicle was travelling fourteen miles over the fifty-five miles per hour speed limit. Schlough approached the vehicle and spoke to the driver, identified as Adell, through the open driver's side window. Adell apologized for speeding and said that he was running late for work. Schlough noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from inside the vehicle and observed a passenger in the front seat. Schlough asked Adell if he had consumed any alcohol, and Adell said no. Schlough asked Adell if he had consumed alcohol the previous evening, and Adell said yes.
¶7 Schlough returned to his patrol car and "ran Mr. Adell through dispatch." Schlough learned that Adell had four prior operating while intoxicated convictions and was subject to a .02 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) restriction. Based on his training and experience he knew that a person would have to consume "very little" alcohol to exceed the .02 BAC limit, and that drinking one beer could put a person over that limit.
¶8 Schlough returned to Adell's vehicle and asked Adell to step out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.
¶9 Schlough did not observe any illegal or "suspicious" driving activity other than the speeding before the stop, and he did not observe anything suspicious "about the way that [Adell] talked or what he said" during the stop.
¶10 After supplemental briefing, the circuit court determined that Schlough did not have "sufficient facts" to extend the stop to administer field sobriety tests. Accordingly, the circuit court granted Adell's motion to suppress the field sobriety tests results and subsequent evidence of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration.
¶11 The State appeals.
¶12 The parties agree that there was reasonable suspicion to support the initial traffic stop, namely, the speeding allegation. Their dispute centers on the extension of the stop, and they frame their dispute as whether there was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop for the administration of field sobriety tests. Consistent with the applicable law, as we explain below, we reframe their dispute and conclude as follows: the deputy had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to investigate an operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration offense, and he lawfully administered field sobriety tests in furtherance of that investigation. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court order granting Adell's suppression motion.
¶13 We first state the standard of review, next summarize applicable legal principles, then apply those principles to the facts from the suppression hearing and explain our conclusion, and finally address and reject Adell's arguments to the contrary.
¶14 This court analyzes the grant or denial of a suppression motion under a two-part standard of review: we uphold the circuit court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we independently review whether those facts warrant suppression. State v. Scull , 2015 WI 22, ¶16, 361 Wis. 2d 288, 862 N.W.2d 562. "Whether there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle is a question of constitutional fact."
State v. Popke , 2009 WI 37, ¶10, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569. We review de novo the ultimate question of "whether the facts as found by the [circuit] court meet the constitutional standard." State v. Hindsley , 2000 WI App 130, ¶22, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48.
¶15 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.1 "The temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." Popke , 317 Wis. 2d 118, ¶11, 765 N.W.2d 569 (quoted source omitted). Therefore, the "stop must not be unreasonable under the circumstances." Id. "The reasonableness of a traffic stop involves a two-part inquiry: first, whether the initial seizure was justified and, second, whether subsequent police conduct ‘was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified’ the initial interference." State v. Smith , 2018 WI 2, ¶10, 379 Wis. 2d 86, 905 N.W.2d 353. A traffic stop is reasonable at its inception if it is supported by reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has been or will be committed. State v. Houghton , 2015 WI 79, ¶30, 364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143. If such a suspicion exists, an officer "may conduct a traffic stop in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion," or in other words, "try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions." Id. , ¶22 (citing Berkemer v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984) ) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
¶16 Most pertinent in this case is the following law. State v. Betow , 226 Wis. 2d 90, 94-95, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999).
¶17 State v. Waldner , 206 Wis. 2d 51, 56, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996) (internal citation omitted). "The reasonableness of a stop is determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances." State v. Post , 2007 WI 60, ¶13, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634.
¶18 From the legal principles summarized above, "[i]t follows that the legality of the extension of the traffic stop in this case turns on the presence of factors which, in the aggregate, amount to reasonable suspicion that [the defendant] committed a crime the investigation of which would be furthered by the defendant's performance of field sobriety tests." State v. Hogan , 2015 WI 76, ¶37, 364 Wis. 2d 167, 868 N.W.2d 124. We conclude that the deputy here lawfully extended the traffic stop because the totality of the facts as they unfolded established reasonable suspicion to investigate the offense of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, and that he lawfully administered field sobriety tests in furtherance of that investigation because those tests would be likely to support or dispel his suspicion. We first address whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to investigate the offense of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, and we next address whether he properly administered field sobriety tests in furtherance of that investigation.
¶19 We turn to whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conger
... ... intervention in the first place, the stop may be extended and ... a new investigation begun. The validity of the extension is ... tested in the same manner, and under the same criteria, as ... the initial stop ... State v. Adell , 2021 WI.App. 72, ¶16, 399 ... Wis.2d 399, 966 N.W.2d 115 (quoting State v. Betow , ... 226 Wis.2d 90, 94-95, 593 N.W.2d 499 (Ct. App. 1999)) ... See also State v. Smith , 2018 WI 2, ¶28, 379 ... Wis.2d 86, 905 N.W.2d 353 ("Discovering additional ... reasonable ... ...
-
State v. Gill
...an OWI-related offense. State v. Hogan, 2015 WI 76, ¶37, 364 Wis.2d 167, 868 N.W.2d 124; State v. Adell, 2021 WI.App. 72, ¶18, 399 Wis.2d 399, 966 N.W.2d 115. Here, there is no dispute that the officer stopped Gill's vehicle because it was speeding, and that the initial stop was valid. Gill......
-
Cnty. of Jefferson v. Wedl
... ... The review an order granting or denying a suppression motion ... presents an issue of constitutional fact. State v ... Howes , 2017 WI 18, ¶17, 373 Wis.2d 468, 893 N.W.2d ... 812 ... On appeal, I uphold the circuit court's findings of fact ... the traffic stop and commence an OWI investigation. See ... State v. Adell , 2021 WI.App. 72, ¶25, 399 Wis.2d ... 399, 966 N.W.2d 115 (speeding is a plus factor that adds to ... reasonable suspicion that a ... ...
-
State v. Nichols
...in support of his position that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to convert the OAR investigation into a PAC investigation. In Adell, this court reversed the circuit order granting suppression and held that there was reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances th......