On Point blog, page 225 of 483
Federal racketeering conviction counts as prior drug offense under § 961.41(3g)(c)
State v. Rogelio Guarnero, 2014 WI App 56, petition for review granted 11/14/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 72; case activity: 2013AP1753-CR; 2013AP1754-CR
Guarnero’s conviction for violating the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was a conviction for a crime “under a statute … relating to controlled substances,” and therefore qualified as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender enhancement provision of § 961.41(3g)(c), because the predicate acts of racketeering involved, among other things, controlled substance offenses.
Defendant was in custody while being questioned, so statements taken without Miranda warnings must be suppressed
State v. Brandon D Andre Burnside, 2013AP1293-CR, District 1, 4/29/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Burnside’s position would not have believed that he could stop police questioning and leave. Therefore, the statements he made to the police before they administered Miranda warnings must be suppressed.
Trial court didn’t err in excluding evidence of lab mistakes from years before defendant’s blood sample was tested
Fond du Lac County v. Douglas L. Bethke, 2013AP2297, District 2, 4/30/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it excluded evidence of particular crime lab errors that happened years before Bethke’s blood sample was analyzed.
Stop converted to arrest where police moved OWI suspect 10 miles to hospital before performing sobriety tests
State v. Dean M. Blatterman, 2013AP2107-CR, District 4, 4/24/14 (one-judge; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/24/14, reversed, 2015 WI 46; case activity
You don’t see this very often. The court of appeals just reversed a circuit court decision denying a motion to suppress evidence of intoxication. The police performed field sobriety and blood tests after moving the suspect out of the general vicinity of the stop. This converted the stop into an arrest for which there was no probable cause.
Probable cause for OWI arrest found; conviction upheld
City of Oshkosh v. Jonathan D. Berger, 2013AP2804, District 2, 4/23/14 (one-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying the settled test for deciding whether the police had probable cause to arrest for OWI, the court of appeals examined the facts and circumstances of this case and found probable cause.
State proved defendant made valid waiver of right to counsel in prior OWI case
State v. Casey D. Schwandt, 2013AP2775-CR, District 2, 4/23/14 (one judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Schwandt’s knowledge about both the role attorneys play and their specialized training showed he made a valid waiver of counsel in a prior OWI case, despite his claim he was unaware of what an attorney could do for him in the particular case in which he waived counsel.
Sentencing court’s “assumption” that defendant acted with intent to kill victim was not inaccurate information
State v. Jameil A. Garrett, 2013AP1178-CR & 2013AP1179-CR, District 2, 4/23/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2013AP1178-CR; 2013AP1179-CR
The circuit court did not sentence Garrett based on an “unwarranted assumption” that Garrett acted with intent to kill the victim of a strangulation offense. Thus, Garrett is not entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
State’s complaint need not precisely allege date of child sexual assault offenses
State v. Brian Kempainen, 2014 WI App 53, petition for review granted 9/18/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 32; case activity
In this case, the circuit court dismissed 2 counts of sexual assault of a child against Kempainen because the charges failed to provide sufficient notice of when the assaults occurred thus violating due process. The court of appeals, clarifying the test in State v. R.A.R. and State v. Fawcett, reversed and held that the date of the crimes need not be precisely alleged.
Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule means evidence from unlawful use of GPS device can be admitted
State v. Scott E. Oberst, 2014 WI App 58; case activity
The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained during a period when binding Wisconsin appellate precedent permitted the warrantless installation of a global positioning system (GPS) device. Thus, even though the installation of the GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle was unconstitutional under United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), exclusion of the evidence obtained from the device is an inappropriate remedy.
Circuit court can’t order condition of supervision that restricts operating privileges in excess of the period set under § 343.30
State v. Jack E. Hoppe, 2014 WI App 51; case activity
A sentencing court may not prohibit a defendant convicted of OWI from driving a motor vehicle as a condition of extended supervision when the length of extended supervision exceeds the maximum period for revoking operating privileges set by § 343.30.