Police can stop a driver for backing up quickly on an empty road in the middle of the night, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled last Thursday. At around 1:35am on July 28, 2009, city of Tomah Police Officer Jarrod Furlano watched from a parking lot as Matthew Pudlow backed up his car at East McCoy Boulevard to get into the left-hand turn lane so he could turn onto North Superior Avenue. No other cars were anywhere near. Pudlow’s car did not swerve, hit any curb or squeal its tires.
Furlano claimed that from his vantage point in a nearby parking lot, his “visual estimation” was that Pudlow was traveling 30 MPH in reverse. Furlano was “alarmed” and so followed, stopped and cited Pudlow for unsafe backing and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Pudlow fought the charge, but lost in municipal court and then circuit court, both of which found Furlano had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. The circuit court, however, threw out the backing charge as lacking in clear, satisfactory, convincing evidence. Pudlow appealed his conviction.
“An investigatory stop for criminal and noncriminal violations is warranted if an officer reasonably suspects, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the motorist has committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit an unlawful act,” appeals court Judge Brian W. Blanchard wrote in his decision. “The officer must identify specific and articulable facts, which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion of the stop. This approach strikes a balance between the governmental interest in preventing crime and the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
Pudlow argued that under a 1999 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling, a traffic stop is invalid when it is based on a police officer’s misreading of the law. Pudlow asserted that the circuit court showed Furlano misunderstood the backing law because it threw out the charge. Blanchard disagreed.
“If Pudlow has a complaint, it is that the officer made a mistake of fact, not law, in believing that he had either reasonable suspicion, or probable cause to believe an offense had been committed, justifying a stop,” Blanchard wrote. “It is also irrelevant that the circuit court concluded at trial that the city had not met its burden in proving an actual violation of the unsafe backing statute.”
Blanchard explained that, under the circumstances, Furlano clearly had reasonable suspicion that Pudlow may have made an unsafe maneuver on the empty street.
“Officer Furlano observed Pudlow engaged in conduct that could constitute unsafe backing, which posed a danger to any person or motorist who might have appeared in his path,” Blanchard wrote. “Motorists may use reverse gear to back up their vehicles in a safe manner on roadways for short distances, at low speeds, under many circumstances without violating the unsafe backing statute. In contrast, the officer’s uncontradicted testimony, which was not meaningfully impeached by the defendant, was that the defendant backed up at approximately thirty miles per hour in an area in which one could expect other people or vehicles to appear.”
Because Furlano had reasonable suspicion, the stop was valid and Pudlow’s conviction upheld. A copy of the decision is available in a 30k PDF at the source link below.
Source: 
Tomah v. Pudlow (Court of Appeals, State of Wisconsin, 9/16/2010)
[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]
I thought in most states an officer could make a traffic stop if the person was acting “suspicious.” Missing a turn and then backing up at 30mph is clearly suspicious.
I would be more troubled if the law was being interpreted that an officer can make a mistake, regarding a person breaking a law and stop and search the vehicle as part of the stop. For example if an officer said they thought the speed was 30mph and the motorist was going 45mph…when 45mph was the actual speed. If this would be allowed it would be a huge loophole in people’s rights. The officer could use stupidity or ignorance as an excuse to make any stop they wanted to.
P.S. I have a hard time pitying people who choose to drink and drive. We need to get those criminals off the road.
I see nothing wrong here. Backing up at 30mph on a public road is needlessly reckless and the guy turned out to be DUI. I’d rather the cops pull over people who are driving like they’re drunk and get them off the roads than running everybody – drunk or not – through sobriety checkpoints.
As I live in a country, where police can stop anyone for any reason whatsoever, I find the whole concept of “unlawful traffic stop” silly. And yes, missing an intersection and backing up IS suspicious activity, I’d be more surprised if the cops hadn’t stopped the guy.
I hope the drunk lost his license.
Going backwards on a public road is a major no-no. I’ve done it myself, sometimes to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, but at best it’s something you get away with, not something you have some God-given right to do.
“An investigatory stop for criminal and noncriminal violations is warranted if an officer reasonably suspects, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the motorist … is about to commit an unlawful act.”
This kind of shocked me … is this in-line with probable cause?
Reasonable suspicion is what is needed for a stop. Probable cause, a higher standard, is what is needed for an arrest.
Let me translate the judge’s opinion, because here’s what it really means:
“An investigatory stop for criminal and noncriminal violations is warranted if an officer feels like it.”
What is this sudden obsession with giving cops carte blanche to stop and hassle people who aren’t committing crimes?
Backing up quickly on an empty street is enough to get pulled over. That is what this ruling says. That is why he was stopped. And guess what, he got convicted of a DWI. None of this should be surprising.
In his decision, the judge said “Pudlow may have made an unsafe maneuver on the empty street.”
How unsafe could it have been on an empty street?
Plenty unsafe, even if you pretend that the odds of someone driving up on his turkey are zero.
Hmm, backing up at 30 mph after missing an intersection and I am sure there was also some sudden braking involved and erratic driving before said reverse….just saying.
“I am sure there was also some sudden braking involved and erratic driving….”
If that were the case, I’m sure that it would have been in the report. A cop will put everything he can in his report to support his case.
30 mph in reverse? Yeah that would send up red flags to me. I don’t think I have EVER done more then 3 mph in reverse regardless of the road / driveway conditions. Seriously 30 mph in reverse, while drunk? How didn’t he crash? Most people can’t reverse properly while sober!
It’s like my uncle who only becomes a safe driver when driving a European car backwards on the wrong side of the road while drunk and stoned.
Maybe he simply knows how to operate a steering wheel. I don’t find it difficult to drive backwards in a straight line at 30 mph. It’s easy enough that I’d expect to be able to do it even while plastered.
I agree, coming from Germany I’m really surprised that in the US you can do all sorts of illegal things as long as you “look”un-suspicious.
in Germany you have random sobriety checks, and Police can pull you over and check the status of your car etc. at any time. no one complains (except criminals, of course). typically at minimum they check the 1st aid kit, emergency signs (reqd. in Germany), all safety/emission compliance etc. and breathalyzer test if appropriate.
i would love Police in the US to do the same thing to get rid of unsafe drivers.
The legal system in Germany is quite different from the United States. You have a civil law system where the police and prosecutors are supposed to be neutral. Here we have a common law system where the police and prosecutors are supposed to represent the state and we citizens have to defend ourselves against them.
In practice, that means we balance things differently. No one wants unsafe drivers on the road. On the other hand, no one wants the police having the power to stop and search anyone they want whenever they want. That’s too much power.
Think of it this way. Would you like the police to be able to come in your house any time they want to, and check to see if you were doing anything illegal? Say they come and knock on your door at 1:35 am, say they saw the lights on, and wondered why anyone would be up at that hour. Then search and question everyone in the house. Just to make sure you weren’t breaking the law.
Here we consider our cars the same as our houses. Whether that makes sense or not is debatable. But having made that decision, it does seem fair to make the police live up to it. Unless they have evidence that a law was broken, they cannot stop and search you.
In this case the police officer did not have that evidence. The driver did not violate the unsafe backing law and the officer saw no evidence of drunken driving. I agree with those who criticize the judge’s decision. I think it was an abuse of power to make the stop.
Daanii2,
Read the decision.
“Motorists may use reverse gear to back up their vehicles in a safe manner on roadways for short distances, at low speeds, under many circumstances without violating the unsafe backing statute. In contrast, the officer’s uncontradicted testimony, which was not meaningfully impeached by the defendant, was that the defendant backed up at approximately thirty miles per hour in an area in which one could expect other people or vehicles to appear.”
The defendant did not say he didn’t do this. Here is what the cop needs for it to be an approved stop.
“An investigatory stop for criminal and noncriminal violations is warranted if an officer reasonably suspects, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the motorist has committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit an unlawful act,”
To me, the officer reasonably suspected that the actions of the defendant had committed an unlawful act. I would think that 30 mph in reverse on a road would be illegal. The cop did too.
I did read the decision. I disagree with it.
The police officer stopped and “searched” the defendant because the officer believed that the defendant had committed the offense of unsafe backing. The trial court determined that the defendant had not committed the offense of unsafe backing. The appeals court did not reverse that.
What the appeals court held, and what I disagree with, is that the police officer can stop and search a defendant for an offense he did not commit, and the evidence can then be used to get a conviction on a charge of driving while intoxicated. In other words, you can stop someone on a pretext.
You say, ” I would think that 30 mph in reverse on a road would be illegal. The cop did too.” But you are wrong. And so is the cop.
If the police officer had said that he suspected the driver of driving while intoxicated because he was driving erratically, and backing in an unsafe manner, that would be a different case. But the officer didn’t.
I don’t think this decision is going to make much of a difference. The facts are unusual. The appeals court decision does not open any floodgates for police abuse.
Still, I think the decision is wrong. It troubles me.
Don’t you Germans ever figure ourt that giving the government unlimited power over your life is a bad idea? Especially considering your history…
Come to Florida. They do that stuff here all the time. Heck, just a few months ago the FHP announced an entire quarter of our town would see random equipment and sobriety checkpoints at major intersections.
Nothing like a series of good fishing expeditions to bolster those public coffers.
Danii2: unlike my house, my car is driving on PUBLIC roads and is a 3000 pound heavy weapon cruising at 60 mph or more. the public has some reasonable interest in me not being drunk….
I can be drunk in my house, not much harm done.
you apparently don’t know German law. Police and DA have the same function in all Western nations. Police to be neutral, DA to defend The People.
He should have claimed he was shooting a music video …
30 mph backwards? Did anyone consider how far you have to go backwards to reach that speed, even if you floored it? I’d call BS on that statement alone. Clearly somebody did, as the driver was never convicted of “unsafe backing.”
I once beat a speeding ticket based on where the guy zapped me with the radar relative to the stoplight I had just pulled away from. I contended I would have to have been drag racing to achieve that speed in that short a distance, and since I was not accelerating that aggressively, no case. Never got to court, the prosecutor threw it out.
If the guy were drunk, chances were good that the cop could have stopped him further down the road when he screwed up in some way. This wasn’t it.