City of Watertown v. Jeffrey Donald Perschke, 2018AP555, District 4, 10/18/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Perschke after the radar device the officer was using clocked Perschke going 38 in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. Perschke claims the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him because the radar wasn’t working properly, but the circuit court’s finding to the contrary dooms Perschke’s argument.
Perschke says the radar wasn’t working because, as the officer himself testified, it wasn’t properly integrated with a video device in the squad car that was supposed to show the speed picked up by the radar but instead showed zero. (¶¶3-4). However, the officer testified he relied on the reading of the radar device itself, not the integrated video screen; that the radar had been recently calibrated; and that Perschke’s car was the only target in the radar field. The circuit court credited the officer’s testimony and found the radar was mechanically sound. (¶5). That finding is not contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, so it stands, and Perschke’s challenge to the basis for the stop falls. (¶¶10-11).
