799 N.W.2d 898
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Walli appeals his convictions for first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and resisting an officer.
- Municipal court charged Walli with OUI and a prohibited BAC; he moved to suppress the stop as unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
- At suppression, Officer Munnik testified he observed Walli cross the center line after which he activated lights and recorded video.
- The squad car video and officer testimony formed the basis for the suppression ruling; defense argued the video did not show a center-line crossing.
- The trial court denied suppression, concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Walli.
- Walli pled no contest to resisting an officer and was convicted of OUI; appeal challenged the standard of review for evaluating the video evidence and the trial court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs review of disputed video evidence for suppression? | Walli argues the video should be reviewed de novo; cites Binette and related authorities. | State contends the clearly erroneous standard applies to factual findings based on the video. | Clearly erroneous standard applied to disputed findings based on the video. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Post, 301 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2007) (review of investigative stops; standards of reasonableness and totality of circumstances)
- State v. Washington, 284 Wis.2d 456 (Wis. 2005) (reasonable suspicion requires specific articulable facts; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Powers, 275 Wis.2d 456 (Wis. 2004) (constitutional fact review; two-step standard for reasonable suspicion)
- Phelps v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., Inc., 319 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2009) (credibility and weighing of evidence by trial court; clearly erroneous standard)
- Wurtz v. Fleischman, 97 Wis. 2d 100 (Wis. 1980) (constitutional jurisdiction limits on appellate fact finding)
- Meadows v. State, 65 P.3d 33 (Wyo. 2003) (deference to video-supported credibility findings; de novo review limited)
- State v. Mohammed, 695 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (video vs. officer testimony; credibility determinations)
- State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. 2000) (disputed video evidence scenario; de novo review limited to undisputed facts)