On Point blog, page 2 of 26
COA: Driver passed out in car not seized or subjected to custodial interrogation after police knocked on window to investigate.
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.
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.
COA finds officer did not intentionally or recklessly include false information in affidavit in support of search warrant; circuit court’s order suppressing evidence reversed.
State v. Mark T. Solheim, 2024AP239, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In its decision reversing the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant for a blood draw, the Court of Appeals reminds that Franks and its Wisconsin counterpart Anderson require defendants challenging the veracity of an affidavit in support of a search warrant to do more than show the affidavit contained false information, but also that the officer knew the information was false at the time it was asserted and included it intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
COA finds portions of juvenile suspect’s statements during marathon interrogation involuntary due to coercive interrogation techniques, but juvenile was not in custody for Miranda purposes; circuit court’s order suppressing all statements affirmed in part and reversed in part.
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.
Seventh Circuit denies habeas relief; holds that WI COA reasonably applied case law regarding invocation of right to remain silent
Johnnie Mertice Wesley v. Randall Hepp, No. 22-2968, 1/5/24
Wesley’s challenges to law enforcement conduct which resulted in him giving inculpatory statements fail, as the Seventh Circuit concludes that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied SCOTUS precedent.
Defense Win! COA suppresses statements obtained while trying to ascertain what defendant threw into garbage after having been arrested
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.
Seventh Circuit rejects factual findings of lower courts but affirms on the merits in close habeas loss
Jones v. Cromwell, 75 F.4th 722 (7th Cir. 2022).
In a disappointing defense loss, the Seventh Circuit holds that, at least under these circumstances, the defendant’s request for a “public pretender” was sufficiently ambiguous such that police had no obligation to cease their interrogation.
COA declines to consider constitutional challenge to ordinance because defendant failed to serve AG or join city as party
State v. Kevin Richard Raddemann, 2022AP668-CR, 12/21/22, District II (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).
In this misdemeanor OWI case, Raddemann moved to suppress evidence obtained following a stop of his vehicle. After the suppression hearing, he moved for reconsideration, arguing that a City of Hartford cemetery ordinance, which was the basis for the stop, was unconstitutionally vague. The circuit court denied Raddemann’s motion to reconsider because it was untimely. ¶5.
Suppression affirmed! Officer interrogated defendant without Miranda warning
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.
Defense win: Prosecutor improperly questioned defendant at trial about his exercise of right to remain silent when he was arrested
State v. Nestor Luis Vega, 2021AP126-CR, District 4, 12/23/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vega testified at his trial on drug delivery charges and denied he had sold drugs to the informant and that the informant was not telling the truth. (¶12). On cross examination, the prosecutor, over defense counsel’s objections, asked Vega why he failed to give police his exculpatory version of events when he was arrested. (¶¶13-15). These questions violated Vega’s due process rights under State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 421 N.W.2d 96 (19880, and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), and the trial court’s error in allowing the questions was not harmless.