Ambroziak didn’t challenge an officer’s decision to stop his car for disorderly conduct. Instead, he contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to conduct field sobriety tests but he lost based on the facts found by the circuit court:
Given these factual findings—disorderly driving, a strong odor of intoxicants, Ambroziak walking with a “slight stagger,” his bloodshot eyes, and the time of day—we conclude it was entirely reasonable for [the officer] to suspect that Ambroziak was intoxicated. As a result, Rogers was permitted under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to extend the stop to ask Ambroziak to perform field sobriety tests. See State v Betow, 226 Wis. 2d 94-95. 593 N.W2d 90 (Ct. App. 1999). Slip op. ¶9.