On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. William R. Hartman, 2011AP622, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

OWI – Refusal Hearing – Raising Challenge to Lawfulness of Stop

Refusal hearing supports litigation of lawfulness of stop; State v. Anagnos, 2012 WI 64, ¶42, 341 Wis. 2d 576, 815 N.W.2d 675, followed:

 ¶14      Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that Hartman improperly raised the issue of reasonable suspicion at the refusal hearing.   

State v. Thomas R. McEssey, 2011AP2668-CR, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The police inadvertently destroyed a recording of a phone conversation between McEssey and the alleged victim. (A separate, but partial recording – containing only the latter’s side of the conversation – was made, misplaced, and belatedly disclosed to the defense.) Finding that the destruction of the recording of the full conversation was unintentional,

State v. Portia M. Meyer, 2012AP206-CR, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Assuming that the police placed Meyer under arrest when handcuffing her and placing her in the back of a squad car following a traffic accident, they had probable cause to do so for failure to yield right-of-way:

¶8        Police may arrest a person without a warrant for “the violation of a traffic regulation if the traffic officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is violating or has violated a traffic regulation.”[2]  Wis.

State v. Robert B. Sonnenberg, 2012AP1025, District 2, 9/19/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain Sonnenberg’s conviction for OWI-1st. He admitted that he drank some indeterminate amount of alcohol before his car had a flat tire and then drank more on the side of the road; after an officer encountered him, he performed poorly on FSTs and his blood draw resulted in a .184 BAC.

Village of Menomonee Falls v. Timothy E. Rotruck, 2012AP1024-FT, District 2, 9/1, District 2, 9/19/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Concededly proper traffic stop; after citations issued, officer sought and obtained consent to search vehicle, resulting in seizure of contraband – court concludes that, under the circumstances, traffic stop had clearly ended thus consent wasn’t product of an unnecessarily prolonged (therefore illegal) detention.

State v. Jose O. Gonzalez-Villarreal, 2012 WI App 110 (recommended for publication); case activity

Counsel (Michael J. Knoeller) was present while the police interrogated, and elicited incriminating responses from, his client, Gonzalez-Villarreal. G-V didn’t speak English, and Knoeller doubled as interpreter. The state issued charges, and Knoeller continued to represent G-V. However, the state moved to disqualify Knoeller as counsel, arguing that his service as interpreter during the interrogation created a risk that Knoeller might have to testify.

State v. Reginald Scott Williams, 2011AP1379-CR, District 1, 9/18/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams drove at an excessive speed (30+ over the limit), and crashed into another car, resulting in death and serious injuries. He pleaded no contest to one count of homicide by negligent use, § 940.10 and one count of reckless driving / GBH, § 346.62(4). At the time of the pleas,

State v. Christopher J. Felton, 2012 WI App 114 (recommended for publication); case activity

Search & Seizure – PBT – Probable Cause 

Notwithstanding that Felton passed field sobriety tests, probable cause existed to administer a preliminary breath test.

¶8        This section does not require that the officer have probable cause to arrest a driver for drunk driving before giving that driver a preliminary-breath test. 

State v. Richard P. Flehmer, 2012AP534-CR, District 3, 9/18/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Delay of 29 months (22 of which attributable to state) between filing of complaint and trial, while presumptively prejudicial, didn’t violate 4-factor test for right to speedy trial:

¶15      Balancing all four factors, we conclude Flehmer’s right to a speedy trial was not violated.  Although the ­­­twenty-two month delay attributable to the State is a long period of time,

State v. William Thomas Hudson, III, 2010AP1598-CR, District 4, 9/13/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

¶9        “The concept of outrageous governmental conduct originates from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” [State v. Givens, 217 Wis. 2d 180, 188, 580 N.W.2d 340 (Ct. App. 1998).] Outrageous governmental conduct may arise where the government’s conduct is so enmeshed in the criminal activity that prosecution of the defendant would be repugnant to the American criminal justice system.