State v. Krier
| Decision Date | 27 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-0385-CR,91-0385-CR |
| Citation | 165 Wis.2d 673,478 N.W.2d 63 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Peter J. KRIER, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
James A. Walrath of Shellow, Shellow & Glynn, S.C., Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.
Christopher W. Stock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Ozaukee County, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before NETTESHEIM, P.J., and BROWN and ANDERSON, JJ.
Peter J. Krier appeals his conviction for a fifth offense operating a vehicle after revocation. There are two issues: first, there was an anonymous tip given to police that Krier was driving at a certain time and place without a license. Krier argues that this was insufficient information justifying an investigative stop. Second, Krier notes that sec. 968.24, Stats., gives police a stop and detain power to briefly investigate crimes. Krier argues that this cannot include a traffic-related violation, the first offense of which is a forfeiture. We conclude that a corroborated anonymous tip about an activity which could be either a forfeiture or a crime is sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. We affirm.
On May 29, 1990, the Saukville police received a telephone call from a female who refused to identify herself. She stated that "Peter Krier" was standing in the front yard saying goodbye to his girlfriend and that he was getting into his blue station wagon. The caller alleged that Krier did not possess a valid driver's license. After the dispatcher obtained the address from the caller, an officer was dispatched to investigate. When he arrived, he observed only a small blue station wagon in the driveway of the address identified by the caller. The officer then left the area. Minutes later, the same person called again and remained anonymous. This time the caller stated that Peter Krier had left and was driving northbound on Colonial Parkway. The officer was dispatched again. When he sighted the same blue station wagon being driven a block from where he had observed it in the driveway, he directed the car to pull over. The driver identified himself as Peter Krier. The officer's check of Krier's driver's license revealed that the license was revoked and Krier had been sentenced four times in the previous five years for operating after revocation. Krier was then arrested. He brought a motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the arrest, including physical evidence and statements. The court denied the motion. He was convicted and he appeals.
In reviewing an order regarding suppression of evidence, we will uphold the trial court's findings unless they are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d 128, 137, 456 N.W.2d 830, 833 (1990). However, whether a stop meets statutory and constitutional standards is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id. at 137-38, 456 N.W.2d at 833.
We first consider whether the anonymous tip about Krier provided a basis for an articulable and reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in unlawful activity. The United States Supreme Court established factors for evaluating anonymous tips in investigative stop circumstances. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2416, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). The Court concluded that when 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. 110 S.Ct. at 2417. Our 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. Richardson, 156 Wis.2d at 142, 456 N.W.2d at 836.
In this case, the anonymous caller gave detailed information. The facts provided by the caller were personally corroborated by the police officer. There was a blue station wagon at the address the caller specified. A man was driving the vehicle on the very street and in the direction stated by the informant. This meant that the anonymous caller had accurately predictedfuture behavior, which the Supreme Court has indicated contributes to the reliability of a tip. White, 110 S.Ct. at 2417. Thus, there was sufficient corroboration to permit the officer to infer that the caller was well informed about Krier's driver's license and that she was telling the truth when she alleged that Krier did not have a valid license. Under the totality of the circumstances known to the officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Iverson
...569 ) (emphases added) (citation omitted).¶ 14 Finally, the court of appeals quoted from one of its own decisions, State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.App.1991), in which it had held that where an individual's conduct might constitute either a civil forfeiture or a crime, depe......
-
State v. Williams
...of evidentiary or historical facts, those findings will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Ct.App.1991). The application of constitutional and statutory principles to the facts found by the trial court, however, prese......
-
State v. Limon
...be innocent. Still, officers have the right to temporarily freeze the situation so as to investigate further." State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 678, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct.App. 1991) (citations ¶ 23 Although she recognizes that "[t]he blunt, of course, was contraband—itself evidence of criminal a......
-
State v. Roberts
...we will uphold the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Section 805.17, STATS.; State v. Krier, 165 Wis.2d 673, 676, 478 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Ct.App.1991). However, whether a search passes constitutional muster is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. ......