Background
After Officer Luke Radke stopped Gregg Neil Wilcoxson’s vehicle shortly after 1 a.m. for equipment violations, he observed that Wilcoxson had parked diagonally across two spaces and had bloodshot, glossy eyes. Radke also viewed a green leafy substance in the vehicle, learned that Wilcoxson had seven prior OWI convictions and was on probation for bail jumping and a methamphetamine-related offense, and considered Wilcoxson somewhat confrontational.
Radke extended the stop for field sobriety tests and arrested Wilcoxson. Wilcoxson moved to suppress his blood-test evidence, arguing in the circuit court that Radke lacked probable cause to arrest and obtain the blood test. After body-camera footage revealed discrepancies with portions of Radke’s testimony, the circuit court again denied suppression. A jury acquitted Wilcoxson of OWI but convicted him of operating with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, eighth offense.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Wilcoxson forfeited his appellate argument that Radke lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop for field sobriety tests because he had argued only lack of probable cause in the circuit court.
Exercising its discretion to reach the merits, the court nevertheless concluded that reasonable suspicion supported the extension. The totality of circumstances—irregular parking, bloodshot and glossy eyes, Wilcoxson’s demeanor, his prior OWI convictions and methamphetamine-related probation, the suspected marijuana, and the time of night—reasonably suggested impaired driving. The court therefore upheld denial of the suppression motion and the conviction.
Key Takeaways
- An argument challenging reasonable suspicion for a stop extension may be forfeited if the defendant argued only probable cause to arrest below.
- Irregular but lawful driving or parking can contribute to reasonable suspicion when considered with other indicators.
- Prior OWI convictions, methamphetamine-related probation, suspected marijuana, eye appearance, demeanor, and late-night timing may collectively justify field sobriety tests.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reasonable suspicion is evaluated cumulatively, not by isolating and discounting each fact with a possible innocent explanation. It also illustrates the importance of preserving the specific Fourth Amendment theory to be pursued on appeal.