City of Delafield v. Shawn M. Office, 2024AP227, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms Office’s OWI 1st conviction, concluding that his arrest was supported by probable cause because sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
At the suppression hearing, an officer testified that he observed Office driving his car at eighty-five miles per hour in a sixty-five-mile-per-hour zone, and that he slowed down to fifty miles per hour after passing the squad car. Once pulled over, Office got out of the car and began looking at the passenger side, saying that his tire sensor went off. He was “hostile” toward the officer, refusing to identify himself or provide ID. The officer noticed the odor of intoxicants and Office’s slurred speech. Office also told her he was going to leave. (¶¶2-5).
Police ultimately put Office in handcuffs in the locked backseat of a squad car “for officer safety reasons.” (¶6). The officer told Office she could smell alcohol “when [they] took [him] into custody” and asked him to submit to field sobriety testing. Office refused, and police informed him he was under arrest for OWI. (¶7).
Office moved to suppress the evidence obtained after he was placed in handcuffs, arguing that he was functionally arrested at that point. The circuit court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, ruling that Office was placed into the squad for officer safety, and that “the odor of intoxicants with the exceptional belligerent attitude in and of itself was a basis to arrest him for operating under the influence.” (¶8). He challenges the court’s denial of his suppression motion, arguing that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him.
COA rejects Office’s argument that he was effectively arrested when he was placed in handcuffs. Relying on State v. Blatterman, 2015 WI 46, ¶31, 362 Wis. 2d 138, 864 N.W.2d 26, COA concludes the circuit court’s finding that police reasonably placed Office in handcuffs to de-escalate the hostile encounter and ensure officer safety is not clearly erroneous. Despite the officer’s statement, the Terry stop did not transform into a formal arrest. COA concludes, “[i]t was after Office refused to perform the FSTs that [police] advised Office that he was under arrest for OWI.” (¶17).
Regardless, COA holds that “the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe, even if considered without Office’s refusal to perform FSTs, that he was driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.” (¶18). As a result, the court affirms, concluding that sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. (¶20).
