State v. Tobin J. Jagla, 2023AP2311-CR, 3/18/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s order denying Tobin Jagla’s motion to suppress where police stopped the vehicle he was driving after an officer determined the registered owner of the vehicle did not have a Wisconsin driver’s license. Although officer learned during the stop that Jagla was not the registered owner, Jagla and owner were both males and similar in age.
An Oneida police officer saw Jagla pumping gas at a gas station around midnight. Because it was “bar close time,” the officer ran the license plate of the vehicle Jagla was driving, which showed that the registered owner was Santos Garcia. The officer searched Garcia’s driving record and determined he had not been issued a Wisconsin driver’s license. (¶ 2). Shortly after Jagla left the gas station in the vehicle, the officer initiated a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver had a valid license. (¶ 3). The officer approached the vehicle and saw that Jagla smelled of alcohol, his eyes were glassy, and his speech was slurred. The officer also learned that Jagla had seven prior convictions for OWI and was subject to a .02 blood alcohol restriction. Jagla admitted he had been drinking, but declined to perform field sobriety tests. (¶ 3).
Jagla was charged with OWI as an 8th offense and operating a vehicle while revoked. He filed a motion to suppress the fruits of his traffic stop, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that he committed a traffic offense. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that he did not obtain a picture of Garcia when he searched his driving history and only knew that Garcia was a male and did not have a Wisconsin driver’s license. (¶ 5). The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, and Jagla pled no contest to OWI as an 8th offense while the State dismissed the charge for operating after revocation. (¶¶ 7-8).
On appeal, Jagla renewed his argument that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle he was driving. In particular, he maintained that because exemptions exist from the requirement to possess a driver’s license and because Jagla was a different ethnicity than Garcia, reasonable suspicion had dissipated. (¶ 9).
The Court observed that “there is reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when an officer knows that the registered owner of the vehicle has not been issued a Wisconsin license, unless the officer has information indicating that the registered owner is not driving.” (¶ 14). The Court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion that the owner of the vehicle Jagla was driving did not have a driver’s license because he had no reason to believe that Garcia was not driving given that Jagla and Garcia are both males and similar in age. (¶ 15).
The Court rejected Jagla’s argument that, because exemptions from the driver’s license requirement exist under Wisconsin law, the fact that the registered owner of a vehicle does not have a Wisconsin driver’s license is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion. The Court found that the officer did not need to rule out the possibility that Garcia was subject to a driver’s license exemption because reasonable suspicion does not require police to rule out innocent behavior. (¶¶ 20-21).
As to Jagla’s argument that he was not the same ethnicity as Garcia (Jagla noted that Garcia is a Hispanic name and he is white), the Court found that there was no evidence that Garcia is Hispanic or that the officer knew Garcia was Hispanic. Further, a person with a Hispanic last name does not necessarily have Hispanic features. (¶¶ 23-24).
