State v. Grimm, Appeal No. 2019AP789-CR
Decision Date | 16 October 2019 |
Docket Number | Appeal No. 2019AP789-CR |
Citation | 2019 WI App 65,936 N.W.2d 426 (Table),389 Wis.2d 378 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jamie Ellin GRIMM, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
¶1 Jamie Ellin Grimm appeals from a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (second offense) and challenges the circuit court’s order denying her motion to suppress the evidence. She asserts that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop when she flashed her high beams at the oncoming officer within 500 feet. We conclude that the officer had sufficient grounds to reasonably suspect that a traffic violation had taken place, justifying the stop. We affirm.
¶2 On September 3, 2017, at about 11:32 p.m., Officer Sean Blanton was traveling eastbound on State Line Road in Walworth County when he observed a vehicle approaching westbound. In front of Blanton’s squad car was another vehicle traveling eastbound. While Blanton testified that he believed that Grimm (driver of the westbound car) had her high beams on continuously as she approached him, it is undisputed that the squad car video of the stop shows that, as Grimm approached within 500 feet of Blanton, she flashed her high beams. Blanton did not flash his high beams at Grimm.2
¶3 Blanton activated his overhead emergency lights, turned around, and conducted a traffic stop of Grimm. She was subsequently arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).
¶4 Grimm moved to suppress all evidence on the ground that Blanton initiated an unlawful stop as her high-beam flashing was not a traffic violation. After an evidentiary hearing and arguments of counsel, the circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the flashing of the high beams was a violation of WIS. STAT. § 347.12(1)(a) and therefore served as a sufficient basis for a stop. The court found that the high beams were not on continuously but that Grimm flashed them at Blanton within 500 feet. As explained by the circuit court:
¶5 Despite the absence of the squad car and body camera videos in the appellate record, the central facts found by the circuit court were not disputed by the parties and were confirmed at Grimm’s subsequent trial. See State v. Truax , 151 Wis. 2d 354, 360, 444 N.W.2d 432 (Ct. App. 1989) ( ). Blanton testified at trial: that there was a car ahead of him in the eastbound lane of travel; that, as Grimm approached within 500 feet, she flashed her high beams at him; and that Grimm told him that she was looking at her GPS, "messing" with her headlights, and accidently turned on her high beams.
¶6 After a trial, a jury acquitted Grimm of OWI but found her guilty of operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. Grimm appeals.
¶7 Whether evidence from a traffic stop should be suppressed is a question of constitutional fact. State v. Truax , 2009 WI App 60, ¶8, 318 Wis. 2d 113, 767 N.W.2d 369. When reviewing such questions, we will sustain a circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we will decide de novo whether those facts satisfy the constitutional standard. Id.
¶8 Because an investigatory stop constitutes a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, the officer must be able to cite specific and articulable facts that have created a reasonable suspicion "that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime," to include reasonable suspicion that a noncriminal traffic law has been or is being violated. County of Jefferson v. Renz , 231 Wis. 2d 293, 310, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999).
¶9 Grimm does not challenge the circuit court’s finding that she briefly flashed her high beams at Blanton within 500 feet. Rather, she raises several other challenges both to the factual support for the circuit court’s ruling as well as its conclusion of law that she violated WIS. STAT. § 347.12(1)(a). We reject each of Grimm’s arguments.
¶10 WISCONSIN STAT. § 347.12 provides in part as follows:
¶11 Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Chew , 2014 WI App 116, ¶6, 358 Wis. 2d 368, 856 N.W.2d 541. The language of the statute is the starting point and, if it is clear, we apply the statute to the facts. Id. The language should be given its common, ordinary meaning, should be interpreted within its context, and with the goal of discerning the meaning intended by the legislature. State v. Moreno-Acosta , 2014 WI App 122, ¶8, 359 Wis. 2d 233, 857 N.W.2d 908.
¶12 The language of WIS. STAT. § 347.12(1)(a) is clear and, when applied to these undisputed facts, shows a likely traffic violation, providing a sufficient basis to conduct a stop. Put simply, within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle, the driver must dim his or her high beams so that the glaring rays are not directed into the eyes of the operator of the other vehicle. It is undisputed that Grimm flashed her high beams at Blanton within 500 feet. That plainly allowed Blanton to reasonably suspect that a traffic law was violated and that a stop could be conducted. See State v. Houghton , 2015 WI 79, ¶30, 364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143.
¶13 Grimm argues that the statute requires a showing that the flashing impaired the vision of the oncoming driver, pointing to the requirement that the headlamps must be dimmed, depressed or tilted "so that the glaring rays are not directed into the eyes of the operator." WIS. STAT. § 347.12(1)(a). State v. Tomaszewski , 2010 WI App 51, 324 Wis. 2d 433, 782 N.W.2d 725, rejected Grimm’s argument that the statute provides a separate element that "glaring rays" had an impact.
¶14 In Tomaszewski , an officer observed a vehicle with its high beams on and traveling within 400 feet of another vehicle, dimming his high beams only as he passed the other vehicle. Id. , ¶3.3 The officer initiated a stop, which led to an OWI arrest. Id. , ¶4. The defendant argued that there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop as there was no showing that the "glaring rays" of his high beams were reflected into the other driver’s eyes. Id. , ¶8. Upon reviewing WIS. STAT. § 347.12(1)(b), we rejected any need for proof that the lights were reflected into the other driver’s eyes. Tomaszewski , 324 Wis. 2d 433, ¶10. The statute requires a driver to dim their high beams when within 500 feet of another vehicle. Id. The court explained that the statute’s reference to preventing the "glaring rays" was a description of the statute’s purpose as opposed to a necessary element for its application. Id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial