Reasonable suspicion does not require the presence of certain facts, or a certain number of facts; rather, “what constitutes reasonable suspicion is a common sense test: under all the facts and circumstances present, what would a reasonable police officer reasonably suspect in light of his or her training and experience.” State v. Young, 212 Wis. 2d 417, 424, 569 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1997). That “common sense test” was met here.
¶11 …[A]n officer with seven years of law enforcement experience observed a vehicle driving too fast and in a reckless manner, as evidenced by a turn taken too fast, i.e., at an imprudent speed. The suspicion-arousing driving was compounded by the early morning timing, close to bars’ closing time. Further, Stegall behaved unusually in wholly ignoring a squad car pulling into his driveway, the sound of the squad car’s honking, as well as a law enforcement officer exiting his vehicle and verbally attempting to garner Stegall’s attention. [Deputy] Tainter’s actions were reasonable considering the cumulative effect of these facts and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from their accumulation, as they “gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that something unlawful might well be afoot[,]” i.e., reckless driving or driving under the influence of an intoxicant. [State v. Waldner, 206 Wis. 2d 51, 58, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996).] ….