Search and Seizure — reasonable suspicion

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Search and Seizure — reasonable suspicion

Where the defendant trespassed on the property of a person he did not know at 3 a.m., the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle.

“The State appeals from an order granting Carl Rissley’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained during a roadside stop of his vehicle by police. The trial court held that it was not a valid Terry stop, mainly because Rissley had committed no crime. We disagree. There was reasonable suspicion that Rissley trespassed on the property of a person he did not even know just before 3:00 a.m., confronted the homeowner in the homeowner’s driveway, demanded to know the whereabouts of ‘Pookie’—a person with whom the homeowner was unfamiliar—left only when the homeowner called the police, and sped off ‘like a bat out of hell.’ The homeowner told the police dispatch about the incident, saying that this was not the first time this person had approached him and that the man had ‘threatened’ him. We agree with the State that police had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being afoot. In addition to the State’s assertion of disorderly conduct, we see suspicion of criminal trespass, speeding, erratic driving, and perhaps stalking. At any rate, there was more than enough to stop Rissley and investigate. Further, we reject Rissley’s assertion that there is a bright-line rule mandating that courts exercise caution in supporting a Terry stop whenever the stop is for a ‘minor crime.’ There is no such bright-line rule.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP1789-CR State v. Rissley

Dist. II, Racine County, Torhorst, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Newlun, James D., Racine; Lloyd, Katherine Desmond, Madison; For Respondent: Campion, John W., Madison