### COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED January 18, 2023

Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See W IS . S TAT . § 808.10 and R ULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2020AP2113

- CR Cir. Ct. No. 2018CF1074 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT III

S TATE OF W ISCONSIN ,
P LAINTIFF - R ESPONDENT ,

V . J ASON D. K LUCK ,
D EFENDANT - A PPELLANT .

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Marathon County:
GREGORY J. STRASSER , Judge. Affirmed

.

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in W IS . S TAT . R ULE 809.23(3).
¶ 1 PER CURIAM. Jason Kluck appeals from a judgment convicting him of ope rating a motor vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in hisNo. 2020AP2113

- CR

2 bloo d, as a fourth offense. The sole issue on appeal is whether an informant’s tip was sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion for police to conduct Kluck’s traffic stop. We conclude that the specificity of the information provided by the informant and its corroboration support its reliability. Therefore, the circuit court properly denied Kluck’s motion to suppress evidence gather ed following the traffic stop , and we affirm the judgment of conviction.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The following facts from the suppression hearing are undisp uted

. While on patrol on the afternoon of September 20, 2018, Officer Edward
Bauknecht of the Rothschild Police Department responded to a dispatch call regarding a complaint of erratic driving

. Dispatch relayed that a “named caller ” reported that a wh ite Ford Ranger pickup truck was proceeding southbound on West Grand Avenue near the 19th Hole Tavern when it “crossed the cen terline”
and was being “driv [en] on the sidewalk for a short time

. ” The caller provided the truck’s license plate number and stated that it continued southbound on Grand
Avenue until it r eached Business Highway 51. The caller then reported that the
truck pulled into th e Shopko Plaza parking lot.

¶ 3 Within minutes of receiving the dispatch call, Bauknecht observed
the described truck driving through the Shopko Plaza parking lot . Bauknecht and another responding squad car activated their lights and stopped the truck

. Bauknecht did not personall y observe any “bad” driving and did not have any
further information about the caller ’s identity or from where he or she was calling. Based upon these facts, the circuit court denied Kluck’s suppre ssion motion

. Kluck appeals.No. 2020AP2113

- CR

3 DISCUSSION

¶ 4 When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, we will uphold the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. W IS

. S TAT

. § 805.17(2) (2019

- 20 ); State v. Hindsley , 2000 W I App 130, ¶22, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48. However, we will independently determine whether the facts found by the circuit court satisfy applicable constitutional provisions. Hindsley , 237 Wis. 2d 358, ¶22.

¶ 5 It is constitutionally permissible for a law enforcement officer to briefly detain an individual for investigative questioning when there exists a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts together with
rational inferences drawn from those facts, that criminal activity may be afoot and that action would be appropriate. Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 21

- 22 (1968). For an informant’s tip to justify an investigative stop, the tip “should exhibit reasonable indicia of reliability.” State v. Rutzinski , 2001 WI 22, ¶18, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623
N.W.2d 516. In assessing the reliability of a tip, a cou rt should take into account both the informant’s veracity and basis of knowledge. Id.

¶ 6 In addition, w here the allegations in th e tip suggest an imminent threat to public safety, it may be reasonable for an officer to conclude that the potential for danger caused by a delay in immediate action justifies stopping the suspect without any further observation. Id. , ¶ 26. “Thus, exigen cy can in some circumstances supplement the reliability of an informant’s tip in order to form the basis for an investigative stop.” Id

. ¶ 7 Here, the fact that law enforcement officers located a truck matching the description given by the caller (including the license plate number) in the place contemporaneously identified by the caller partially corroborated the tip , andNo. 2020AP2113

- CR

4 therefore supported the caller’s veracity. Furthermore, although the caller did not specify the basis for his or her knowledge, it would be fair to infer from the nature of the information provided

— particularly the license plate number and the distance over which the observations were reported

— that the caller was in another vehicle following the truck. At a minimum, the caller must have been in close proximity to the truck. Finally, the report that the truck had been driven up onto the sidewalk suggested an imminent threat to public safety from an impaired
driver

. ¶ 8 Kluck contends that we should trea t the caller as an anonymous informant because dispatch did not provide Bauknecht with the caller’s name.
E ve n if the caller were anonymous , the partial corroboration showing veracity, specificity demonstrating a basis for knowle d ge , and exigency of the t ip provided sufficient indicia of reliability to support the reasonable suspicion determination. Under these circumstances, and applying Rutzinski , w e conclude that the circuit court properly denied the suppression motion.

By the Court.

— Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See W IS

. S TAT

. R ULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2019

- 20).