On Point: 1. Miranda custody

State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense  impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.

State v. Jeremy A. Sobotik, 2024AP1976-CR, 3/19/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In an appeal seeking to test the boundary between permissible traffic stop inquiries and interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, COA holds that the officer in question did not cross the constitutionally-imposed line and affirms.

State v. Lavelle Edgar Young, 2024AP470, 12/26/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying Lavelle Young’s motion to suppress physical evidence and his statements when an officer knocked on the window of his vehicle after observing Young sleeping in the driver’s seat of the vehicle.  The Court held that Young was not seized and was not in custody when he was questioned by police.

State v. K.R.C., 2023AP2102, 10/30/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); 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.

State v. Kruckenberg Anderson, 2023AP396-CR, 7/25/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

The tragic death of a newborn baby in the bucolic countryside of southwest Wisconsin prompted aggressive interrogation techniques by law enforcement that the Court of Appeals considered coercive in light of the suspect’s age of 16.  But the court found that a reasonable 16-year old would have felt free to leave when the police told him repeatedly he was not under arrest and did not have to answer questions; law enforcement therefore did not have to advise the suspect of his Miranda rights.  The COA affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court’s order suppressing the defendant’s statements.

State v. Kale K. Keding, 2022AP1373-CR & 2022AP1374-CR, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In an eminently readable and refreshing opinion, COA methodically works through a battery of counterarguments to hold that police could not use statements Keding made after having been asked about a tissue he discarded into a wastebasket while in police custody.

State v. Rodney J. Ofte, 2021AP1302-CR, 4/21/22, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After the State charged Ofte with OWI 2nd, he moved for suppression because Deputy Paulson had interrogated him in the back of a locked squad car without a Miranda warning. The circuit court suppressed all evidence from that point on–Ofte’s statement and the results of his FSTs and breathalyzer test. The State appealed arguing that Ofte was not in custody for 5th Amendment purposes. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. Anne E. Streckenbach, 2020AP345-CR, 12/7/21, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

When a cop stopped Streckenbach for a traffic violation he observed signs of intoxication. He asked her the 24 questions that appear the DOT’s Alcohol/Drug Influence Report–questions that are usually asked after the driver has been arrested and Mirandized. Streckenbach couldn’t answer all of the questions, so the cop conducted field sobriety tests, which she failed. Did the cop’s questioning violate her state and federal constitutional rights to be free from self-incrimination?

State v. Brian L. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2018AP858CR; case activity (including briefs)

Halverson was interrogated over the phone by a police officer while he was in jail on an unrelated matter. Wisconsin courts once treated incarceration as per se Miranda custody, believing that was the law SCOTUS had established. But Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), held that it’s not. Halverson argued the Wisconsin Supreme Court should adopt the per se rule under our state’s Constitution, but SCOW now declines. It also holds that the particular circumstances here didn’t amount to custody in the absence of such a rule.

State v. Brian v. Rotolo, 2019AP2061-CR, petition for review granted 12/28/20; case activity

Issue presented (adapted from the petition for review):

In State v. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, ¶6, 346 Wis. 2d 523, 828 N.W.2d 552, SCOW held that the test for Fifth Amendment Miranda custody is whether “a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the interview and leave the scene.” Does this test for determining Miranda custody also apply when police legally detain a suspect under Terry?