State v. Raenold Quiles, 2012AP1282, District 2, 10/31/12
Given the trial court’s finding of fact that Quiles was merely “wandering over to and touching the fog line for a bit,” with otherwise “smooth, normal driving,” the traffic stop for crossing the fog line wasn’t supported.
¶9 Here, the evidence conflicted as to how many times Quiles crossed the fog line. McKay testified that Quiles crossed onto and over the fog line “several” and “multiple” times. The video recording, on the other hand, does not clearly show that Quiles crossed the fog line prior to the one time right before McKay pulled him over. When asked if the video showed “everything else” he saw other than the horizontal nystagmus gaze test, McKay testified, “Yes.” Given the conflicting evidence on whether Quiles crossed the fog line multiple times, we defer to the trial court on this finding of fact. Walli, 334 Wis. 2d 402, ¶17. The trial court found that the video showed no more than “wandering over to and touching the fog line for a bit.” This finding is not clearly erroneous. Based on the facts as found by the trial court, there was no reasonable suspicion to stop Quiles. We affirm Judge Davis’s decision to set aside the verdicts and his judgment of dismissal.