State of Wisconsin v. Alex Mark Hagen, 2024AP1180, 3/6/25 District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reversed the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence of field sobriety tests and their fruits, finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
A Holmen police officer stopped a pickup truck driven by Alex Mark Hagen on a rainy night because he failed to stop at a stop sign. While the truck pulled over to the side of the road, the officer saw Hagen reach to the center console area of the truck. The truck’s front and rear passenger tires went over the curb and onto the grass as Holmen parked on the shoulder of the road. (¶¶ 5-6).
The officer approached Hagen outside of the truck and saw a sweatshirt spread over the center console, a cooler in the back seat, and smelled an “odor of intoxicants” inside the truck. Hagen denied he had been drinking and denied he was trying to hide anything in the center console. (¶ 6).
A second officer arrived on the scene and saw an open box of beer in the truck’s cab and smelled a “slight odor” of intoxicants from the truck. The second officer said Hagen’s eyes were “watered over” and “glossy” and his speech was slightly slurred, although he spoke coherently. (¶ 9). The officers directed Hagen to perform field sobriety tests and he was then charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, both as second offenses. (¶ 3).
Hagen moved to suppress all evidence obtained during and after the field sobriety tests, which was granted by the circuit court because it found that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to conduct field sobriety tests. (¶ 1). The State appealed.
The parties did not dispute that police had reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial traffic stop, but argued whether police had reasonable suspicion that Hagen operated a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant when they directed Hagen to perform field sobriety tests.
A traffic stop “becomes ‘unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket.’” (¶ 19) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States (2015)). But police may expand their investigation if an officer becomes aware of “additional suspicious factors which are sufficient to give rise to an articulable suspicion that the person has committed or is committing an offense or offenses separate and distinct from the acts that prompted the officer’s intervention in the first place.” (¶ 20). If expanding the scope of an investigation requires more time than was needed to investigate the basis for the original stop, police must have reasonable suspicion of an additional offense. (Id.).
The Court found the following facts supported reasonable suspicion that Holmen operated a vehicle while intoxicated: 1) he failed to stop at a stop sign and drove over a curb when he parked the truck; 2) the officer smelled intoxicants from inside the truck; and 3) the officer saw Hagen “digging” in the center console and saw a sweatshirt covering the center console, from which the officer could reasonably infer that Hagen was trying to conceal evidence of drinking. (¶¶ 25-28). “Taken together, these facts support reasonable suspicion that Hagen was operating while under the influence of an intoxicant.” (¶ 29).
Hagen argued that the Court of Appeals was bound by the weight the circuit court gave to the factors cited above; specifically, that the truck driving over the curb “was not an issue,” the odor of intoxicants was not specifically attributed to Hagen, and the officers could have asked more questions about looking under the sweatshirt covering the console. The Court disagreed because it reviews independently whether the facts are sufficient to support reasonable suspicion. (¶ 32).
