COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

April 27, 2021

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 WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2020AP1132-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2019CF80

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT III

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

ALEX J. PREMO,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Barron County: 

JAMES C. BABLER, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, 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 WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Alex Premo seeks review of a suppression ruling 

that led him to plead guilty on a drug charge. Premo contends the circuit court’s 
No. 2020AP1132-CR

2

determination of probable cause for his arrest was based upon an assumption of 

facts not in evidence. We conclude that the totality of the circumstances supported 

a determination of probable cause even without consideration of the challenged 

facts. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 The following facts from the suppression hearing are undisputed. At 

about 4:00 a.m. on March 7, 2019, Turtle Lake patrol officer Shane Traczyk 

responded to a call from a local casino. Upon arriving at the casino, Traczyk 

spoke with the casino’s security supervisor, Gina Kasik. Kasik informed Traczyk 

that the casino had surveillance video of a suspected drug deal that had recently 

occurred in its parking lot. 

¶3 Traczyk viewed the video in the casino’s surveillance room, also 

recording it on his body camera. He observed three males and one female walk to 

the casino parking lot and gather around an SUV. Before entering the vehicle, one 

of the men (later identified as Premo) took something out of his pocket and handed 

it to another one of the men, who was bald. Traczyk could not determine what had 

been handed over, but Kasik told him she thought it was money. 

¶4 Upon entering the vehicle, the bald man produced some sort of vial, 

twisted off its cap, and poured an unidentified substance from the vial into a 

baggie while tapping the top of the vial. The bald man handed the baggie to 

Premo. Meanwhile, the third man opened one of the SUV’s doors and grabbed a 

jacket. Premo then exited the vehicle and returned to the casino with the third 

man, while the bald man and the woman drove away in the SUV. 
No. 2020AP1132-CR

3

¶5 After Traczyk viewed the surveillance video, Kasik directed him to 

Premo’s location on the gaming floor of the casino. Traczyk approached Premo, 

asked to speak with him in a side room, and advised him of his Miranda rights.1 

Traczyk then told Premo that he had watched a video of the transaction in the 

parking lot, and he asked Premo what substance had been poured into the baggie. 

Premo said that he had gone outside so that his friend could grab a jacket, and that 

he did not know what substance would have been poured into the baggie in the 

SUV. Premo also denied possessing any illegal substance. Traczyk then placed 

Premo under arrest and searched him incident to arrest. Traczyk recovered the 

baggie, which subsequent testing determined to contain methamphetamine. 

¶6 Traczyk did not testify about how long he had been a law 

enforcement officer, whether he had ever personally witnessed a drug transaction 

or arrested anyone suspected of selling a controlled substance, or what, if any,

training he had regarding drug transactions or common packaging for controlled 

substances. The judge, however, noted that he had sixteen years’ experience on 

the bench and had seen “hundreds and hundreds of methamphetamine cases where 

methamphetamine is transferred in Ziploc bags or baggies, especially at 4:00 in 

the morning.” 

¶7 After taking judicial notice of the manner in which drugs are 

commonly transferred, the circuit court concluded there was probable cause for 

arrest, and it denied the suppression motion. Traczyk pled guilty to possessing 

 

1

 See generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 458 (1966). 
No. 2020AP1132-CR

4

methamphetamine, and he now appeals the suppression ruling. See WIS. STAT.

§ 971.31(10) (2019-20).2 

DISCUSSION

¶8 When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, we will uphold the 

circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. WIS. STAT.

§ 805.17(2); State v. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, ¶22, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614

N.W.2d 48. We will, however, independently determine whether the established 

facts satisfy applicable constitutional provisions. Hindsley, 237 Wis. 2d 358, ¶22. 

¶9 The constitutional provision applicable here is the Fourth 

Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. 

U.S. CONST. amend. IV. A warrantless arrest constitutes a seizure for Fourth 

Amendment purposes, but the arrest is reasonable when supported by probable 

cause. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 585-86 (2018). Probable 

cause for arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances within the arresting 

officer’s knowledge would lead a reasonable law enforcement officer with similar 

training and experience to believe that the suspect probably committed a crime. 

State v. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, ¶11, 267 Wis. 2d 531, 671 N.W.2d 660. The 

probable cause test is “not a high bar,” and it requires only a “substantial chance of 

criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Wesby, 138 S. Ct. at 

586. When competing reasonable inferences could be drawn, the officer is entitled 

to rely on the one justifying arrest. Kutz, 267 Wis. 2d 531, ¶12.

 

2

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise 

noted.
No. 2020AP1132-CR

5

¶10 Premo first argues that the circuit court erred in taking judicial notice 

that drugs are commonly packaged in baggies and often sold in the early morning 

hours. We will assume without deciding that these facts were not a proper subject 

of judicial notice. See WIS. STAT. § 902.01(2) (authorizing a court to take judicial 

notice of adjudicative facts that are “generally known within the territorial 

jurisdiction” of the court or are “capable of accurate and ready determination by 

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”). 

¶11 Premo next contends that the remaining facts in Traczyk’s 

possession were insufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest. Absent any 

evidence that Traczyk had specific training in drug enforcement, we will evaluate 

the reasonableness of his actions from the objective point of view of an untrained 

officer or layperson. Even without having specialized knowledge that drugs are 

commonly packaged in baggies and are often sold in the early morning hours, we 

are satisfied that the facts within Traczyk’s possession—and reasonable inferences 

that could be drawn therefrom—would lead a reasonable officer in Traczyk’s 

position to believe Premo had probably committed a crime.

¶12 Traczyk observed video of Premo leaving the casino to conduct a 

short transaction in a vehicle in the parking lot, suggesting the parties to the 

transaction may have been seeking out a secluded location. The transaction 

involved the transfer of a portion of a substance located in a container, which 

would be consistent with the sale of a fungible substance such as drugs. The 

casino employee also told Traczyk that he believed Premo had handed money to 

the bald man, who himself subsequently handed Premo the baggie. Traczyk was 

aware that the casino employee who witnessed the same video suspected a drug 

transaction, indicating that the observed behavior was not what the casino 

employee would expect to see from normal customers, and that it would fit within 
No. 2020AP1132-CR

6

a layperson’s expectation of what a drug transaction would look like. Finally, 

when questioned, Premo not only failed to provide an innocent explanation for the 

transaction, but instead he denied any knowledge of what the substance was in the 

baggie he had just obtained from the bald man to whom he had handed money, as 

seen on the video. Premo’s denial of knowing the identity of the substance highly 

suggested he had consciousness that the substance was, in fact, contraband.

¶13 In sum, the totality of the circumstances would lead even an 

untrained officer to reasonably believe that Premo had just engaged in a drug 

transaction. We conclude there was probable cause for the arrest, and the circuit 

court properly denied the suppression motion.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.