02-0467-CR State v. Holstein

Listen to this article

Kirk Holstein appeals a judgment of conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. He argues that the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion by concluding that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of Holstein’s vehicle. Specifically, he argues that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion because he did not see Holstein’s vehicle being driven in the aggravated erratic manner that an “anonymous” informant described observing. Moreover, Holstein claims, this fact, along with the officer’s lack of information about the informant’s reliability, called that reliability into question.

This court concludes that contrary to Holstein’s arguments, the record is replete with evidence demonstrating both the informant’s and his information’s reliability and reasonable suspicion that Holstein was operating while under the influence of an intoxicant.

The trial court’s order denying Holstein’s motion to suppress and the judgment of conviction are affirmed.

This opinion will not be published.

Dist III, Menomonie County, Smeltzer, J., Hoover, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: William A. Schembera, Menomonie

For Respondent: James M. Peterson, Menomonie; Andrew J. Maki, Menomonie