Although an “[a]dmittedly … close case” (¶15), police had reasonable suspicion to stop Van Camp under all the circumstances, including his “somewhat evasive” driving behavior, even though they observed no specific criminal activity, applying State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990); State v. (Marvin) Williamson, 113 Wis. 2d 389, 402, 335 N.W.2d 814 (1983) (stop upheld where two men appeared startled and stared at police officers sitting in their squad car and then turned and walked away); and State v. (Stance) Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d 514, 517-18, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973) (stop upheld where defendant drove a circuitous route and pulled his car over to the curb in response to approach of marked squad car):
¶16 Specifically, this case began when [Officer] Sweetman observed two males in a bar after “bar time” try to avoid being seen by him. While there is no indication that Van Camp was one of those individuals, it was reasonable for Sweetman to suspect from this behavior that there was something amiss at the bar. Sweetman then observed Van Camp emerge from the bar at 2:17 a.m. When Sweetman began following Van Camp, Van Camp immediately turned on the first available road and turned into a residential driveway. After Sweetman passed the road, Sweetman observed Van Camp exit the driveway. When Sweetman turned around and turned onto the road, Van Camp pulled his vehicle over. Sweetman’s vehicle was then momentarily side-by-side with Van Camp’s, and Sweetman stopped his vehicle, waiting to see what Van Camp was going to do. Van Camp then crossed the intersection and traveled straight into another residential driveway. These specific and articulable facts support the circuit court’s finding that Van Camp’s driving was “somewhat evasive,” or an attempt to avoid Sweetman. Additionally, it is reasonable to infer from Van Camp’s actions of pulling into two residential driveways after 2:00 a.m. for no apparent purpose that some sort of wrongful activity was afoot….