On Point: m. Suppression motions

City of Delafield v. Shawn M. Office, 2024AP227, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms Office’s OWI 1st conviction, concluding that his arrest was supported by probable cause because sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.

State v. Michael A. Wilson, 2022AP1099, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

Despite some procedural quirks, the Court of Appeals wastes no time in affirming what turns out to be a relatively straightforward refusal conviction.

State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and  (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).

State v. Yancy Kevin Dieter, 2020 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)

Dieter called 911 at about 6 in the morning and reported that he’d crashed his car after drinking at a bar. The crash happened about four hours before Dieter made the call; he was badly injured and the car’s other occupant was killed.

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.

State v. Robert C. Blankenheim, 2015AP239-CR, District 2, 7/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Blankenheim’s challenges his OAR conviction by arguing that he was unlawfully stopped, that the evidence wasn’t sufficient to prove operation on a highway, and that the police officer wasn’t a credible witness. The court of appeals disagrees “on all points….” (¶1).

City of Chippewa Falls v. Douglas M. Buchli, 2014AP1422, District 3, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was probable cause to arrest Buchli for OWI despite the fact the police investigation discovered inconsistent information—including an admission by Buchli’s companion, Mahoney, that she was driving.

City of Antigo v. M.K., 2013AP2627, District 3, 7/8/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court held there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle M.K. was driving because the court found the officer knew the vehicle’s registration was expired before he made the stop. The court’s finding of fact was not clearly erroneous, even though the officer’s testimony was equivocal as to whether he learned that fact as part of the original dispatch or after he spotted the vehicle and called in the license plate.

State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03
For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶8. At the outset, we reject the State’s threshold argument that Riedel is precluded from challenging the trial court’s suppression ruling based on Riedel’s conviction on the OWI charge and the dismissal of the PAC charge. The State reasons that Riedel’s appeal lacks a justiciable controversy because he has failed to argue that he would not have pled to the OWI charge if the trial court had granted the suppression motion or that the OWI evidence would have been insufficient absent the blood test results.

State v. Lucian Agnello, 226 Wis.2d 164, 593 N.W.2d 427 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Agnello: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue/Holding: On a motion to suppress statement, counsel’s bare relevancy objection to an inquiry into the statement’s truthfulness is held sufficient to preserve a Rogers v. Richmond/Jackson v. Denno objection. This holding is summed up by the following passages:

¶12 There is no question that Agnello’s objection was not as specific as it could have been.