State v. Tek
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021AP1112-CR |
| Parties | State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christopher Antonje Tek, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
This opinion will not be published. See Wis.Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock County: Cir Ct. No. 2020CT166 KARL HANSON, Judge.
¶1 Christopher Tek appeals his conviction of second-offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration arising from a traffic stop, challenging only the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Tek argues that, when he was handcuffed within approximately 45 seconds of initiation of the stop, he was placed under arrest and the warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause. Therefore, his argument continues, all evidence obtained thereafter must be suppressed because it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Following our supreme court's analysis in State v. Blatterman, 2015 WI 46, 362 Wis.2d 138 864 N.W.2d 26, I conclude that Tek was not arrested when he was placed in handcuffs. Accordingly, I affirm.
¶2 The State filed a criminal complaint charging Tek with second-offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration and second-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, based on evidence obtained during and following a traffic stop. Tek filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained after he was handcuffed, because, according to Tek, at that point he was arrested without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
¶3 The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing at which the officer who conducted the stop, Benito Rocha, testified and the police report and Rocha's body camera footage were entered into evidence. The following facts, taken from Rocha's testimony, Rocha's police report, and the body camera footage, are not disputed on appeal.
¶4 At the time of the stop, Rocha had eleven and one-half years of experience as an officer with the Janesville Police Department and had received training in conducting traffic stops and investigating suspected operating while intoxicated offenses.
¶5 At approximately 4:30 a.m. on June 10, 2018, a Sunday, Rocha received a call from dispatch that a car that was possibly involved in an accident was driving on flat tires around Richardson Street and Benton Avenue, a residential area in the City of Janesville. Rocha drove northbound on Richardson Street and observed a car with its headlights on, stopped on the same side of the road that Rocha was driving on, but facing south towards the oncoming traffic. As Rocha drove closer to the car, its headlights turned off. Rocha turned the search light of his squad car on the stopped car and saw one person, later identified as Tek, sitting in the driver's seat.
¶6 Rocha approached the car, saw Tek sitting in the driver's seat "with keys in hand," and asked Tek "[H]i, how are you today?" Tek did not respond. Rocha asked Tek what was going on and whether Tek could hear him. Tek then, unprompted, began getting out of the car while stating, "Put me in [hand]cuffs or I'll leave."[2] As Rocha again asked Tek what was going on and twice asked whether Tek had been drinking, Tek was restlessly shifting around, turning to face the car and putting his hands behind his back, turning to face Rocha, turning back to face the car when Rocha ordered him to do so, and throughout repeatedly saying variations of, "put me in cuffs or I'll leave," and that he had a ride coming and was "about to get picked up right now." Tek did not answer Rocha's questions regarding whether he was drinking, but did respond to Rocha's questions about whether Tek was the only person in the vehicle. During this interaction, Tek appeared agitated, restless, and slightly incoherent in his repetition of his claim that someone was coming to pick him up while ignoring Rocha's questions.
¶7 Approximately 45 to 60 seconds after Rocha first approached Tek, as Tek was pulling away from Rocha, Rocha told Tek to drop the keys into his hands and began to place Tek in handcuffs, as a "control maneuver[]" while he was investigating what was "going on here." Tek responded, Rocha told Tek to "relax" and completed placing him in handcuffs. As Rocha placed Tek in handcuffs, Rocha detected an odor of alcohol and an odor of marijuana coming from Tek. Rocha continued to ask Tek what he had done that night, and Tek did not respond.
¶8 After placing Tek in handcuffs, and approximately 95 seconds after first approaching Tek, Rocha led Tek away from the stopped car and moved Tek toward the squad car. Tek became more agitated and repeatedly tried to pull away from Rocha while yelling and swearing, and Rocha placed Tek in the squad car, telling him to "have a seat." Once Tek was in the squad car, Rocha closed the door.
¶9 While Tek was in the squad car, Rocha investigated the stopped car and the surrounding area, looking for damage to trees and parked cars that Tek may have collided with. Rocha saw that the car's two front tires were missing and down to the rim, the back tires were flat, and there was damage and paint-transfer on the front bumper.
¶10 Rocha returned to his squad car and asked Tek multiple times to identify himself. Tek refused and began to yell obscenities and to bang his head on the interior of the squad car.
¶11 Approximately seven and one-half minutes after Rocha had placed Tek in the squad car (and eight and one-half minutes after Rocha had placed Tek in handcuffs), Rocha stopped his body camera and drove Tek to the Rock County jail, where Tek was arrested.
¶12 At the jail, Tek's blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant and the analysis of his blood sample showed a blood alcohol content of .162.
¶13 At the conclusion of the hearing on Tek's motion to suppress, the circuit court denied the motion in an oral ruling. One week later, the circuit court, "[u]pon further consideration of the evidence and arguments presented at the … hearing," superseded its oral ruling with a written decision that also denied the motion but for different reasoning.
¶14 In its written order, the circuit court determined that Tek was not under arrest until Rocha transported him away from the scene to the jail, and that until that point Tek was in investigative detention. The court found credible Rocha's testimony, confirmed by the body camera footage, that before Rocha placed Tek in handcuffs, Tek was confrontational and uncooperative, and Tek's statements in response to Rocha's questions demonstrated a consciousness of guilt and that he would leave if Rocha did not place him in handcuffs. The court determined that "[a] reasonable person under this situation would … recognize that Rocha intended to detain Tek so that he could start his investigation." The court also determined that, once Rocha transported Tek to the jail, "it would be plain to any reasonable person" that Tek was in custody and "not free to go about [his] business after a brief investigative detention."
¶16 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Tek pled no contest to second-offense operating while intoxicated, and the charge of second-offense operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration was dismissed and read in at the plea and sentencing hearing.[3]
¶17 Tek appeals his conviction, challenging the circuit court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence.[4]
¶18 Tek argues that Rocha arrested him when Rocha placed him in handcuffs and that the warrantless arrest was unlawful because it was not supported by probable cause. I first summarize the applicable standard of review and legal principles. I next apply that law to the undisputed facts and conclude that, as the circuit court ruled, Tek was not arrested when Rocha placed him in handcuffs. Finally, I address and reject Tek's arguments to the contrary.
¶19 This court analyzes the grant or denial of a motion to suppress under a two-part standard of review: we uphold the circuit court's findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and we review the application of constitutional principles to those facts independently, as questions of law. Blatterman, 362 Wis.2d 138, ¶16. Pertinent here, when Tek was arrested and whether his arrest was supported by probable cause are questions of law that this court reviews de novo. See State v. Mosher, 221 Wis.2d 203, 211, 584 N.W.2d 553 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Kutz, 2003 WI.App. 205, ¶13, 267 Wis.2d 531, 671 N.W.2d 660.
To continue reading
Request your trial