On Point blog, page 6 of 6
COA affirms order continuing protective placement
Racine County v. R.P.L., 2025AP813-FT, 7/30/25, petition for review granted 11/17/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an appeal from an annual protective placement review, R.P.L. escapes a finding of mootness but loses on the merits.
COA rejects undeveloped challenges to speeding citation and affirms
County of Milwaukee v. Sharon A. Dawson, 2024AP584, 7/22/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Dawson challenges the actions of the Milwaukee Police in enforcing the traffic code as racial profiling, her her pro se arguments are too poorly pleaded for the Court to address them.
COA holds that leaving section of municipal citation form blank does not invalidate citation
Village of Reeseville v. Frederick J. Prough, 2024AP1046, 7/3/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case of potential interest to those litigating ordinance violations, COA holds that an alleged technical defect in the citation form does not void the citation itself.
SCOW holds that statute criminalizing abortion cannot be enforced under doctrine of implied repeal
Josh Kaul, et al., v. Joel Urmanski, et al., 2025 WI 32, 7/2/25, on bypass from COA; case activity
In a long-awaited decision, SCOW holds that a criminal statute forbidding abortion cannot be enforced under the doctrine of implied repeal.
In a decision accusing referee of “victim-blaming,” SCOW rejects proposed disciplinary sanction and revokes license of former prosecutor
OLR v. Daniel P. Steffen, 2023AP1511-D, 7/1/25, per curiam decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in its disciplinary capacity).
In a decision of potential interest to criminal practitioners, SCOW revokes the license of a prosecutor who has been criminally sentenced for sex crimes.
COA upholds statute prohibiting possession of a firearm while intoxicated despite State’s failure to adequately litigate matter in circuit court
State v. Bernabe Gonzalez, 2024AP358-CR, 5/6/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In what we believe is COA’s first foray into the vexing world of firearm regulation post-Bruen and Rahimi, COA holds that Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting intoxicated persons from “going armed” passes muster under an originalist legal analysis.
In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner
S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 3/11/26; case activity
In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.
COA reverses suppression in state’s appeal, holds no reasonable expectation of privacy in video uploaded to Snapchat
State v. Michael Joseph Gasper, 2023AP2319, 10/30/24, District 2 (recommended for publication); affirmed on other grounds 1/14/2026 case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court held that an officer’s warrantless inspection of a cyber tip digital video file provided to the officer and identified as child pornography by a private internet service provider constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The COA concludes that Gasper did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the video, which he uploaded to Snapchat in violation of the terms of service and reverses.
COA holds that juvenile interrogated in “closet size” room by SRO was not in custody; finds evidentiary error harmless, and affirms
State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, 10/30/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), affirmed 3/26/26; case activity
In a “close” suppression appeal, COA confronts a fact pattern arising from the intersection between policing and school discipline, finds that a reasonable 12-year old would have felt free to walk away from interviews with law enforcement and school authorities on school grounds, and finds the repeated injection of inadmissible evidence at the court trial harmless.
Client’s motion for plea withdrawal defeated by counsel’s testimony that he explained charges and elements
State v. Orlando Davis, 2018AP2326-CR, 10/1/19, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Davis filed a Bangert motion alleging that (1) the trial court failed to advise him of the elements of the offense to which he pled guilty, and (2) he did not understand those elements. At the postconviction hearing, Davis and his trial lawyer testified about Davis’s understanding of the elements. The postconviction court found counsel more credible, and the court of appeals affirms.