On Point: A. Certification requests

certification; for Rowan: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 10/25/11

Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights

The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person,

certification; for Williams: Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity; review granted, 8/31/11

Search Warrants: Court Commissioner Authority to Issue

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether court commissioners have the power to issue search warrants.  Although Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b)[1] appears to grant that power to court commissioners, appellant Williams argues that the legislature may not confer that power by statute because the Wisconsin Constitution does not authorize the legislature to grant judicial powers to court commissioners.  

certification; for Soto: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity, circuit court affirmed 2012 WI 93

Plea Procedure – Personal Presence

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to determine whether Jon Soto’s statutory right to be physically present during a plea hearing was violated when the judge conducted the hearing through video teleconferencing and whether this issue was properly preserved.

Yesterday, the DOJ moved to withdraw its petition for leave to appeal the TRO entered by the Dane County Circuit Court last week.  The DOJ argues that the appeal is moot because Act 10 became effective the day after its publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau on March 25th.  The court of appeals swiftly denied the motion, explaining:  “it appears that we lack the authority to grant the withdrawal motion while our certification is pending and that the Attorney General should have addressed his motion to the Supreme Court.” 

certification request; case activity

Budget Repair Bill TRO

This case presents several significant issues involving justiciability and the remedies that are available under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.81 et seq.  As we will explain below, we believe that resolution of these questions will require clarification of the interaction between the Open Meetings Law and a line of cases dealing with the separation of powers doctrine.

certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Spaeth BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Review granted 2/8/11

ISSUE

In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 460 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the government may compel incriminating testimony so long as it comes with a grant of use and derivative use immunity—that is to say,

certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp.; Reply

Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph

The court of appeals certifies to the supreme court the following question:

Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,

court of appeals certification; for Jacob T.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Grounds

We certify this case because we believe that State v. Quinsanna D., 2002 WI App 318, 259 Wis. 2d 429, 655 N.W.2d 752, prevents us from interpreting Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6) in a manner that is consistent both with the language of the statute and constitutional protections accorded parental rights.