State v. Penny S. Rosendahl, 2014AP349-CR, District 2 (1-judge opinion, inelgible for publication); case activity
¶8 When the evidence includes disputed testimony from the arresting officer and a video showing events leading up to the arrest, the circuit court’s findings of fact are subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. State v. Walli, 2011 WI App 86, ¶14, 334 Wis. 2d 402, 799 N.W.2d 898. Here, the deputy’s testimony was that Rosendahl’s vehicle weaved within its lane and crossed the center line. The circuit court found that the video showed that Rosendahl’s vehicle touched the center line on three occasions. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the circuit court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.
¶9 Rosendahl failed to yield when she exited the bar parking lot at 11:36 p.m. Upon following her, [Deputy] Zill saw Rosendahl deviate in her lane and touch and cross the center line “on a couple of occasions.” The video captured on Zill’s squad’s camera showed that Rosendahl’s vehicle touched the center line three times. In assessing whether there was reasonable suspicion, we look at the cumulative effect of all the information Zill had at the time of the stop. See State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, ¶¶22, 47, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W. 2d 106. Finally, on the ultimate question of whether the facts as found add up to a violation of constitutional principles, we can affirm the circuit court’s decision on different grounds than those relied upon by the circuit court. State v. Thames, 2005 WI App 101, ¶10, 281 Wis. 2d 772, 700 N.W.2d 285. While the circuit court relied solely on the failure to yield when exiting the parking lot, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances demonstrates reasonable suspicion to stop Rosendahl.