Wisconsin: Slow Driving Not Cause For Traffic Stop
Driving slowly is not a crime justifying a traffic stop, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday. In an unpublished decision, Judge Anderson reviewed the events leading up to the August 13, 2008 arrest of Tommy K. Miller. At around 1:19am that morning, Miller’s white Lexus SUV passed by Hartland Village Police Officer Matthew Harper who happened to be patrolling Cottonwood Avenue. Miller was traveling 5 MPH.
Harper watched the SUV for a few seconds as it pulled into a parking lot. As he was about to investigate on foot, Harper saw the white SUV leave the lot. At some point, Miller turned back and drove past Harper slowly and accelerating to the speed limit after he passed. Harper floored his accelerator in pursuit, pulling over the SUV even though he admitted that he saw no traffic violation or any suspicious driving. Miller failed a breath test and was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Judge Anderson only considered whether the initial traffic stop itself was justified.
The prosecution argued that the stop was justified because Officer Harper was acting as a “community caretaker” and ensuring that nothing was wrong with Miller that would have caused the slow driving at such a late hour. A circuit court agreed with this interpretation, but Anderson suggested the 2009 state Supreme Court case Wisconsin v. Kramer applied to the situation. In that ruling, the high court found that the community caretaker function must be “totally divorced” from his role of enforcing the law. In other words, a judge must evaluate whether the officer is acting on a hunch that a crime might be taking place, or whether he actually has an objectively reasonable reason for the stop.
“Harper did not testify that he was motivated by a belief that the driver was in need of any assistance, medical or mechanical,” Anderson ruled. “Additionally, Harper did not articulate an objectively reasonable basis for his actions as a community caretaker. Indeed, the record is void of any showing that Harper was concerned that Miller may have been in need of assistance. The record tells us little more than Harper ‘wanted to stop [Miller’s] vehicle right away before it merged onto [Highway] 16.’ Harper’s actions were not ‘totally divorced’ from his law enforcement function and, therefore, do not qualify as actions within his community caretaker function.”
The judgment against Miller was reversed. A copy of the opinion is available in a 30k PDF file at the source link below.
Wisconsin v. Miller (Court of Appeals, State of Wisconsin, 4/28/2010)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- Eric Wait! They're moving? Mexico??!!
- GrumpyOldMan All modern road vehicles have tachometers in RPM X 1000. I've often wondered if that is a nanny-state regulation to prevent drivers from confusing it with the speedometer. If so, the Ford retro gauges would appear to be illegal.
- Theflyersfan Matthew...read my mind. Those old Probe digital gauges were the best 80s digital gauges out there! (Maybe the first C4 Corvettes would match it...and then the strange Subaru XT ones - OK, the 80s had some interesting digital clusters!) I understand the "why simulate real gauges instead of installing real ones?" argument and it makes sense. On the other hand, with the total onslaught of driver's aid and information now, these screens make sense as all of that info isn't crammed into a small digital cluster between the speedo and tach. If only automakers found a way to get over the fallen over Monolith stuck on the dash design motif. Ultra low effort there guys. And I would have loved to have seen a retro-Mustang, especially Fox body, have an engine that could rev out to 8,000 rpms! You'd likely be picking out metal fragments from pretty much everywhere all weekend long.
- Analoggrotto What the hell kind of news is this?
- MaintenanceCosts Also reminiscent of the S197 cluster.I'd rather have some original new designs than retro ones, though.
Comments
Join the conversation
If one can be stopped on the Interstate for driving too slowly, and causing a danger, why doesn't this also apply to too slow on surface streets? I can't quite understand why the officer was not justified as having probable cause.
Looks like john.fritz and myself are the only ones who read the whole story. Before you trash this guy so mush why bon't you go and read the whole report. This guy was driving South and needed to go North on a road where it is not legal to make a u turn. At what speed would you make a turn into a driveway at? 5mph sounds reasonable to me.