On Point blog, page 2 of 26
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.
CoA says cops may ask 24 questions before Mirandizing OWI suspects
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?
Evenly divided SCOW affirms limits on use of statement obtained in violation of Miranda
State v. Manuel Garcia, 2021 WI 76, 9/24/21, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
As explained in our post on the published decision, the court of appeals held that a defendant’s voluntary statement obtained in violation of Miranda can’t be used in the state’s case-in-chief, even for impeachment if the defendant elects to testify.