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 WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP794 Cir. Ct. No. 2019TR12117

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

RYAN C. KALTENBACH,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago

County: TERESA S. BASILIERE, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 GUNDRUM, P.J.1 Ryan C. Kaltenbach appeals from a judgment of 

conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(g) (2019-20). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2022AP794

2

(PAC). He contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress 

evidence. We disagree and affirm.

Background

¶2 At the evidentiary hearing on Kaltenbach’s suppression motion, the 

following relevant testimony was presented.

¶3 The Winnebago County Sheriff’s Deputy who arrested Kaltenbach 

testified that shortly after midnight, between Friday, October 11 and Saturday, 

October 12, 2019, the deputy performed a traffic stop on Kaltenbach because one 

of his headlights was out. When the deputy made contact with Kaltenbach, he 

“immediately ... smell[ed] a moderate odor of alcohol emanating from 

[Kaltenbach] as he spoke,” causing the deputy to believe he “may be impaired.”

Upon questioning, Kaltenbach stated he was coming from “a haunted house,” and 

he admitted “to consuming I believe he said two beers, and his last beer being 

around an hour ago.” The deputy asked Kaltenbach to perform field sobriety tests, 

and Kaltenbach agreed. Those tests, including a preliminary breath test indicating

a .10 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level, resulted in Kaltenbach’s arrest for 

“drunk driving” and ultimately his PAC conviction, based upon the .134 BAC 

result from a test of Kaltenbach’s blood sample drawn less than an hour after the 

stop.

Discussion

¶4 Kaltenbach contends the circuit court erred in concluding the deputy 

had reasonable suspicion to request that he perform field sobriety tests. While this 

is a close case, close cases still need to be decided one way or the other. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.
No. 2022AP794

3

¶5 Reviewing a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, 

we apply the clearly erroneous standard to the court’s factual findings. State v. 

Smiter, 2011 WI App 15, ¶9, 331 Wis. 2d 431, 793 N.W.2d 920 (2010). Our 

review of whether the facts constitute reasonable suspicion, however, is de novo. 

State v. Powers, 2004 WI App 143, ¶6, 275 Wis. 2d 456, 685 N.W.2d 869.

¶6 In order for an investigatory stop to be justified by reasonable 

suspicion, the officer must possess specific and articulable facts that warrant a 

reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot. State v. Young, 2006 WI 98, ¶21, 

294 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 729. While a mere hunch is insufficient, “police 

officers are not required to rule out the possibility of innocent behavior before 

initiating [or extending] a brief stop.” Id. (quoting State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 

77, 84, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990)). As our supreme court has explained:

[S]uspicious conduct by its very nature is ambiguous, and 

the [principal] function of the investigative stop is to 

quickly resolve that ambiguity. Therefore, if any 

reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be 

objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of 

other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers 

have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the 

purpose of inquiry.

Young, 294 Wis. 2d 1, ¶21 (alterations in original) (quoting Anderson, 155 

Wis. 2d at 84). Indeed, “[i]t has been termed ‘the essence of good police work’ to 

briefly stop a suspicious individual ‘in order to ... maintain the status quo 

momentarily while obtaining more information.’” State v. Williamson, 58 

Wis. 2d 514, 518, 206 N.W.2d 613 (1973) (citing State v. Chambers, 55 Wis. 2d 

289, 294, 198 N.W.2d 377 (1972)).

¶7 “Reasonable suspicion is ‘a low bar[.]’” State v. Nimmer, 2022 WI 

47, ¶25, 402 Wis. 2d 416, 975 N.W.2d 598. In determining whether reasonable 
No. 2022AP794

4

suspicion exists, we must consider what a reasonable police officer would have 

reasonably suspected given his or her training and experience. State v. Waldner, 

206 Wis. 2d 51, 56, 556 N.W.2d 681 (1996). Taking “everything observed by and 

known to the [officer],” Nimmer, 402 Wis. 2d 416, ¶26, we “determine whether 

the officer[] had ‘a particularized and objective basis’ to reasonably suspect [the 

defendant] of criminal activity,” id. 

¶8 As the State points out, the present case bears many similarities to 

that before us in State v. Glover, No. 2010AP1844-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI 

App Mar. 24, 2011). In Glover, an officer performed a traffic stop at 

approximately 1:19 a.m. on a vehicle traveling nine miles over the posted speed 

limit. When in contact with Glover, the driver, the officer observed a “slight odor 

of intoxicants emanating from the cab area of his vehicle.” Id., ¶2. There was 

also a passenger in the front seat. Id. Glover acknowledged to the officer that he 

had come from a bar and had been drinking; the officer did not recall if he asked 

Glover how many drinks he had consumed or what time he had consumed them. 

Id., ¶3. The officer had Glover perform field sobriety tests which subsequently led 

to his arrest and conviction. Id., ¶¶1, 6. On appeal, in deciding whether there was 

reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and have the driver perform field 

sobriety tests, we concluded that the slight odor of intoxicants coming from the 

vehicle, Glover’s admission that he had been drinking and had come from a bar, 

and “[t]he time of night, 1:19 a.m., around ‘bar time,’” constituted reasonable 

suspicion that he had been operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. 

Id., ¶18 (citation omitted). 

¶9 Although Glover acknowledged consuming alcohol and coming 

from a bar, the odor was only “slight” and was coming from “the vehicle,” in 

which there was a passenger from whom the odor presumably also could have 
No. 2022AP794

5

been emanating. Glover, No. 2010AP1844-CR, ¶2. In the case now before us, the 

deputy “immediately” noticed a “moderate” odor of intoxicants coming directly 

from Kaltenbach “as he spoke.” Although “moderate” is not more specifically 

defined, the odor was strong enough that it led the deputy to believe Kaltenbach 

“may be impaired.” Further, here, a reasonable deputy would have suspected 

Kaltenbach may have been lying about the amount and timing of the alcohol he 

had consumed because the deputy’s “immediate” observation of a “moderate” 

odor of alcohol coming from Kaltenbach’s breath would tend to indicate more 

significant alcohol consumption than just “two beers” with the last one being 

consumed approximately an hour before the traffic stop.

¶10 Additionally, in both Glover and this case, the stop was made late at 

night. Here, it was made around midnight on a Friday night into Saturday 

morning, a time of day and day of the week that lends to the suspicion that 

Kaltenbach may have been drinking intoxicants in an amount greater than one 

might consume at other times of day or on other days of the week because 

Saturday is generally a day when most people do not have to go in to work early in 

the morning. See State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, ¶36, 733 N.W.2d 634 

(time of night “does lend some further credence” to an officer’s suspicion of 

intoxicated driving); see also State v. Lange, 2009 WI 49, ¶32, 317 Wis. 2d 383, 

766 N.W.2d 551 (concluding the time of day is relevant for an operating while 

intoxicated probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) determination and “[i]t is a 

matter of common knowledge that people tend to drink during the weekend when 

they do not have to go to work the following morning”).
No. 2022AP794

6

¶11 Although, again, this is a close case, we conclude that the deputy 

here engaged in “good police work” by briefly2extending the stop for field 

sobriety tests “in order to ... maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining 

more information.” See Williamson, 58 Wis. 2d at 518 (citing Chambers, 55 Wis. 

2d at 294).

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

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

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

 

2

 While Kaltenbach ultimately was required to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus

(HGN), walk-and-turn, one-leg stand, and preliminary breath tests before being arrested, there is 

no indication in the record that at the time he was asked to perform field sobriety tests it was a 

foregone conclusion he would have to be detained for that entire time. If, for example, the deputy 

had observed zero “clues” of impairment on the first—HGN—test, the deputy well may have 

allowed Kaltenbach to get back in his vehicle and proceed on his way. Instead, however, the 

deputy observed six out of six clues on the HGN test, which obviously further increased suspicion 

of intoxicated driving and supported continued detention. The deputy testified that he recalled 

from his training at “the academy,” that “it’s a 78% chance that he’s above a .08” if six out of six 

clues are observed on the HGN test.