Opinion ID: 3157889
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶17 Our review of an order granting or denying a motion to suppress evidence presents a question of constitutional fact. State v. Robinson, 2010 WI 80, ¶22, 327 Wis. 2d 302, 786 5 Compare Wis. Stat. § 287.81(2), (2m) (violation of littering statute punishable by forfeiture), with Wis. Stat. § 939.12 (Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime), and Wis. Stat. § 345.20(1)(b) (defining [t]raffic regulation as a provision of chs. 194 or 341 to 349 for which the penalty for violation is a forfeiture or an ordinance enacted in accordance with s. 349.06). 7 No. 2014AP515-FT N.W.2d 463 (citation omitted). Similarly, [w]hether there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle is a question of constitutional fact. Popke, 317 Wis. 2d 118, ¶10 (citations omitted). ¶18 When presented with a question of constitutional fact, this court engages in a two-step inquiry. First, we review the circuit court's findings of historical fact under a deferential standard, upholding them unless they are clearly erroneous. Second, we independently apply constitutional principles to those facts. Robinson, 327 Wis. 2d 302, ¶22 (citations omitted). ¶19 This case also requires us to interpret and apply Wis. Stat. § 287.81 and other relevant statutes. Statutory interpretation and application present questions of law that we review de novo while benefiting from the analyses of the court of appeals and circuit court. 118th St. Kenosha, LLC v. DOT, 2014 WI 125, ¶19, 359 Wis. 2d 30, 856 N.W.2d 486 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶20 [S]tatutory interpretation 'begins with the language of the statute. If the meaning of the statute is plain, we ordinarily stop the inquiry.' Statutory language is given its common, ordinary, and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined words or phrases are given their technical or special definitional meaning. Milwaukee City Hous. Auth. v. Cobb, 2015 WI 27, ¶12, 361 Wis. 2d 359, 860 N.W.2d 267 (quoting State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110) (internal quotation marks 8 No. 2014AP515-FT omitted). The context and structure of a statute are also important to the meaning of a statute. Noffke ex rel. Swenson v. Bakke, 2009 WI 10, ¶11, 315 Wis. 2d 350, 760 N.W.2d 156 (citing Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶46).