On Point blog, page 3 of 6
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
SCOW accepts original action petition to determine power of sheriffs to enforce immigration laws
Voces de la Frontera, Inc. v. Gerber, 2025AP2121, petition for original action granted 12/3/25; case activity
In yet another case involving a hot-button issue sure to garner lots of press and national attention, SCOW agrees to review under what circumstances local sheriffs may participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Defense win: COA reverses Chapter 51 order and finds County did not prove current dangerousness
Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.
COA clarifies “serious crime” factor in involuntary med challenges; rejects challenges to treatment plan and affirms
State v. B.M.T., 2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.
Defense Win: COA relies on Melanie L. and Virgil D. to reverse involuntary medication order
Outagamie County v. R.M.R., 2025AP561, 11/18/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a strong defense win, COA rejects the County’s arguments and holds that the evidence is insufficient to support this medication order as the County failed to name the particular medication it sought to involuntarily administer.
In surprise PFR grant, SCOW indicates it will review requirements applicable to annual protective placement reviews
Racine County v. R.P.L., , 2025AP813-FT, petition for review of a unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25
In a surprise grant outside the usual petition conference cycle, SCOW accepts review of a case involving the evidentiary requirements for an annual review of a protective placement issue.
Defense Win: In TPR rife with error, COA holds that court erroneously granted default judgment and clarifies ICWA voluntary termination procedure
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Z.N., 2025AP1817, 11/7/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unpublished but citable case, COA clarifies there is no requirement that respondent appear in person for a voluntary termination of parental rights in an ICWA case and reverses the circuit court’s default finding.
Seventh Circuit holds that Wisconsin prisoner failed to exhaust claim and affirms denial of habeas petition
Terence L. Jannke v. Michael Gierach, No. 23-2485, 11/17/25
In yet another appeal that reiterates the hoops through which petitioners must jump, the Court rejects Jannke’s claims on procedural grounds and affirms.
In case involving unique application of “once waived, always waived” COA holds that “previous violation” doesn’t mean a violation that occurred previously
State v. A.A., 2025AP1907, 11/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a unique waiver posture, COA concludes that the circuit court correctly interpreted the statutes when it used a waiver decision in another county to exempt A.A. from juvenile jurisdiction.
Defense Win: COA clarifies defense of others doctrine and holds erroneous instructions merit new trial
State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.