State v. Peter Joseph Idell, 2024AP2230, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that an odor of intoxicants and the driver’s 2009 conviction for OWI established reasonable suspicion to extend stop for expired license plates to investigate OWI.
A West Allis police officer stopped Peter Idell for driving a vehicle with expired license plates. The officer approached the vehicle and smelled intoxicants; Idell was the only person in the vehicle. The officer returned to her squad car and called for backup to conduct an OWI investigation. She also checked Idell’s record and found that he was convicted of OWI in 2009. Twelve minutes later, another officer arrived, who observed that Idell smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, and slurred speech. Idell admitted he drank wine earlier in the day and 30 to 40 minutes before the traffic stop. The second officer conducted field sobriety tests and arrested Idell for OWI; a blood draw showed his blood alcohol level was .146. (¶¶ 2-4).
Idell filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the stop was unlawfully extended by the second officer to conduct field sobriety tests. The motion was denied and Idell pled guilty to OWI as a second offense. (¶¶ 5-6).
He filed a postconviction motion and argued that the first officer extended the stop to conduct an OWI investigation without reasonable suspicion, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this issue in the motion to suppress. The motion was denied without a hearing. (¶ 7).
Idell renewed his postconviction argument on appeal and the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the motion. The Court noted that a traffic stop may be extended if the officer becomes aware of factors sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense separate and distinct from the acts that originally prompted the officer’s investigation. (¶ 10). The Court agreed with Idell’s assessment that the only facts justifying reasonable suspicion were the first officer smelling intoxicants and her knowledge that he was convicted of OWI in 2009, but found those facts sufficient: “This court concludes that the odor of intoxicants coming from Idell as the sole occupant of the vehicle and knowledge of a prior OWI was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct an OWI investigation” after the officer stopped Idell for illegally driving with expired license plates. (¶ 13).
The Court rejected Idell’s argument that the 2009 OWI conviction should be discounted due to its age because he did not provide case law to support his position and previous cases establish that prior OWIs can subject a defendant to a lower legal alcohol limit where any odor of alcohol can support reasonable suspicion. (¶ 20). Although there was no evidence that Idell was subject to a lower legal limit, the Court found that his prior OWI was “not mitigated because of its age, and was a proper factor to be considered in establishing reasonable suspicion.” (¶ 20). The Court therefore found that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue in the motion to suppress that the stop was unreasonably extended by the first officer. (¶ 23).
Because the Court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop, it did not consider whether the twelve-minute delay for the second officer to arrive was unreasonable. (¶ 22).
