By: Derek Hawkins//November 13, 2018//
WI Court of Appeals – District II
Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Nicholas C. Wegner
Case No.: 2017AP2236-CR
Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.
Focus: Motion to Suppress – Reconsideration
Nicholas Wegner appeals a judgment of conviction for fifth-offense operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), as well as an order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of a suppression decision. Wegner drove into a roundabout directly in front of a deputy sheriff who was already driving within that roundabout, requiring the officer to brake to avoid a collision. Wegner was stopped for a failure to yield the right-of-way, whereupon the deputy collected evidence showing that Wegner had been driving with a PAC.
Wegner initially argues the circuit court was required to grant his suppression motion because, under State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct. App. 1999), aff’d, 233 Wis. 2d 278, 607 N.W.2d 620, the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe that a traffic violation had occurred. We reject this argument because in State v. Houghton, 2015 WI 79, 364 Wis. 2d 234, 868 N.W.2d 143, our supreme court clarified that “reasonable suspicion that a traffic law has been or is being violated is sufficient to justify all traffic stops.” Id., ¶30. Indeed, Wegner effectively concedes in his reply brief that Hougton sets forth the operative standard.
We conclude that the deputy’s observations here satisfied the “reasonable suspicion” standard. Wegner argues he could not be lawfully stopped because the deputy had forfeited the right-of-way by traveling at an unlawful speed through the roundabout. However, WIS. STAT. § 346.18(1) (2015-16)2—the statutory subsection to which Wegner cites in support of his argument—is inapt, and we conclude that a roundabout effectively functions as an uncontrolled “T” intersection under § 346.18(3m) for purposes of drivers yielding the right-of-way. Additionally, under § 346.18(6), Wegner was required to obey the posted yield signs at the roundabout entrance and yield to any traffic already within the roundabout. Under both statutory provisions, the deputy’s observations were sufficient to justify stopping Wegner for failing to yield the right-of-way. Consequently, we affirm the denial of Wegner’s suppression motion and the denial of his reconsideration motion.