State v. Rutzinski

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 2001

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 2001-03-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“provided sufficient justification for an investigative stop”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Michael Gene Wiskowski

Relies on State v. Stolte

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-03-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Jackson v. Commonwealth (2004), United States v. Wheat (2001)

4 federal appellate · 69 state decisions — followed in 15 states

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶1¶ 39. (concurring). I agree with the majority's conclusion that the tip in this case provided sufficient justification for an investigative traffic stop for driving while intoxicated.

¶2¶ 40. Not all tips, however, will provide sufficient justification to enable law enforcement officers to conduct an investigative traffic stop. See majority op. at ¶ 36.

¶3 *753¶ 41. Case law from other states shows that law enforcement units have adopted policies regarding tips of drunk or erratic driving that help to ensure that resulting traffic stops are lawful. For example, police dispatchers in Texas ask an anonymous caller alleging drunk or erratic driving to pull over at the scene. See, e.g., State v. Stolte, 991 S.W. 2d 336, 340 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999). Law enforcement units in Wisconsin might consider adopting policies to promote the reliability of tips.