Opinion ID: 6353417
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nimmer's Suppression Motion

Text: ¶13 Nimmer moved to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the investigative stop, including the handgun, arguing the stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity. He asserted the officers stopped 5The officers later found a .40 caliber casing nearby; however, because they located it after stopping Nimmer, the casing cannot enter into the reasonable suspicion analysis. 6 No. 2020AP878-CR him because of his mere presence in the same neighborhood as the gunfire's reported location. Offering an alternative explanation for his presence at the scene, Nimmer argued he could have been an innocent pedestrian out for a walk on the street. Emphasizing the limits of ShotSpotter, Nimmer noted ShotSpotter does not provide a description of the shooter. It tells officers what, when, and where, but not who. Nimmer also asserted even if he made furtive movements, standing alone his acceleration away from the officers and his blading and digging could not give rise to reasonable suspicion. He also suggested these movements were not suspicious because Nimmer couldn't have known necessarily that the squad car was a police car. It didn't have its red and blue lights on or the siren going. It was dark outside. The lights would prevent . . . Nimmer from being able to identify the squad as a squad car[.] ¶14 The State countered the officers had reasonable suspicion because: (1) the officers arrived on scene almost immediately following the ShotSpotter report; (2) Nimmer was in the close proximity of this call; (3) the officers did not see anyone else near the reported location; and (4) Nimmer acted suspiciously once he noticed the officers. ¶15 The circuit court denied Nimmer's motion, agreeing with the State's argument. The court explained the key was the timing of events. It indicated its decision would be different if ShotSpotter did not work in near real-time and the officers arrived 10 or 15 minutes after the reported shooting; 7 No. 2020AP878-CR however, because only a nominal amount of time had passed, the court reasoned the officers could be suspicious of people at the scene. It found Nimmer was very close to the gunfire's reported location, and Nimmer was the only person the officers saw. Additionally, the court found Nimmer made furtive movements upon noticing the officers, which were consistent with . . . trying to conceal a weapon. Viewing all of these facts together, the court concluded the officers reasonably suspected Nimmer of criminal activity.