On Point
View all >In eagerly-awaited decision, SCOW holds that police did not exceed scope of previously conducted “private search” of suspected CSAM
State v, Michael Joseph Gasper., 2026 WI 3, 1/14/26, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals (on other grounds); case activity
In a narrow decision, SCOW holds that law enforcement did not exceed the scope of a private search conducted on a file uploaded by Gasper to Snapchat account which allegedly contained CSAM and affirms.
COA: OWI suspect was not under arrest when transported to police station to perform field sobriety tests.
State of Wisconsin v. Brenda L. Roszina, 2024AP898, 1/13/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of field sobriety tests because the investigatory stop did not ripen into an arrest without probable cause when police transported the defendant from a parking lot to the police station one mile away to perform the tests.
COA relies on testimony from initial commitment hearing and judicial notice of CCAP records to affirm ch. 51 recommitment
Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.
COA: Criminal charges for violating conditions imposed as a result of refusing a warrantless blood draw are constitutional.
State v. Nicholas L. Sparby-Duncan,2024AP1012-CR, 1/6/26, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Nicholas Sparby-Duncan’s motion to dismiss charges for failing to install an ignition interlock device (IID) and operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) above .02. The COA found that the IID and PAC charges did not impose criminal penalties for Sparby-Duncan previously refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, although he was required to install an IID – which subjected him to the .02 PAC — as a result of his 2008 conviction for refusing.