State v. Anagnos, 815 N.W.2d 675

Officer stopped Anagnos after observing unusual driving: crossing a median, rapid acceleration, and two left turns; Anagnos refused chemical testing after arrest for OWI; circuit court suppressed evidence and dismissed case on stop; court of appeals affirmed dismissal, holding refusal hearing could challenge stop; Wisconsin Supreme Court reverses, finds stop supported by reasonable suspicion, remands to revoke privileges; majority bases decision on statutory interpretation allowing challenge to legality of arrest and totality of circumstances; concurrence clarifies scope and distinguishes refusal from OWI prosecution.
Defense conceded probable cause existed to believe OWI after stop, but disputed constitutionality of the stop prior to arrest; key issue is whether the stop was justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances.
Statutory framework: implied consent law and refusal hearing provisions authorize contest of whether officer had probable cause and whether arrest was lawful; if arrest not lawful, court must revoke otherwise.
Court applied two-step analysis for constitutional fact question and held stop supported by reasonable suspicion; reversed appellate court and remanded to revoke driving privileges.
Record shows debated factual heights (median height) and emphasis on totality over single-law violations; court concluded that individual facts cumulated to reasonable suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a defendant challenge the stop’s lawfulness at a refusal hearing?	State contends only probable cause up to arrest matters.	Anagnos argues stop may be challenged as unlawful.	Yes; defendant may contest arrest lawfulness at refusal hearing.
Was the stop supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion?	State asserts sufficient facts established probable cause/reasonable suspicion.	Anagnos argues no lawful basis for stop.	Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Does §343.305(9)(a)5 require limiting to probable cause to arrest based on stop information?	State views statute as limiting to probable cause.	Anagnos asserts independent inquiry into lawfulness of arrest.	Statute permits contest of arrest legality independent of probable cause.
If stop unlawful, does that affect revocation of privileges?	Not explicitly limited.	Unlawful stop would render arrest unlawful.	If arrest not lawful, no action on operating privilege; otherwise revocation permitted.

Nordness v. State, 128 Wis.2d 15 (Wis. 1986) (limits refusals to the enumerated issues; separates arrest legality from probable cause)
State v. Smith, 308 Wis.2d 65 (Wis. 2007) (refusal hearing issues limited; earlier cases used shorthand for statutory scope)
State v. Post, 301 Wis.2d 1 (Wis. 2007) (reasonable suspicion standard; totality of circumstances test)
State v. Waldner, 206 Wis.2d 51 (Wis. 1996) (stop permissible on lawful conduct with articulable suspicion; totality approach)
Kalal v. Circuit Court, 271 Wis.2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation: read language to give effect; avoid surplusage)