On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255
For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether the officer’s inability to perform an “effective” patdown permitted a further intrusion that led to the discovery of contraband.

Holding:

¶12      Our supreme court has not, however, addressed the scope of a permissibleTerry search where an effective patdown is impossible.

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly exercised discretion in denying eligibility for Earned Release, § 302.05(3), despite misperceiving at one point that defendant was statutorily ineligible:

¶17 … [A]t the December 6, 2004, [postconviction] hearing … [t]he court stated:

Well, of course, the Court is very familiar with Mr. 

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue: Whether Stank was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, relative to the credibility of the informant, in support of his attack on probable cause for the search warrant.

Holding:

¶30      We hold that Stank was not entitled to such a hearing. In Morales v. State, 44 Wis.

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue: Whether a time lag of two months between the informant’s observations and the application for the search warrant rendered the warrant stale.

Holding: Passage of time dose not alone render probable cause stale; the warrant-issuing court may consider various factors, ¶33 (citing State v. Multaler,

State v. Troy Curtis Christensen, 2005 WI App 203
For Christensen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Given proper notice that calls are subject to recording or monitoring, WESCL allows intercepts of outgoing jail calls notwithstanding the potential for capturing attorney-client calls. (State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203, ¶13 n. 5, which left this issue open, thereby extended.)

There was no indication that an attorney-client call had in fact been intercepted,

State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203
For Riley: William E. Schmaal

Issue/Holding: A recorded message heard by any jail inmate placing an outgoing call, to the effect the call may be recorded, was sufficient to trigger WESCL’s one-party consent exception:

¶10      The WESCL is patterned after Title III of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. …

¶11      Courts interpreting the federal law have concluded that “[C]onsent may be express or may be implied in fact from ‘surrounding circumstances indicating that the [defendant] knowingly agreed to the surveillance.’” United States v.

State v. Neil P. Jackson, 2005 WI App 104
For Jackson: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶7 Jackson alleges that the jury instruction on conspiracy violated his right to due process because, he contends, “conspiracy to attempt” is a nonexistent crime. Jackson relies on United States v. Meacham, 626 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1980), and People v. Iniguez,

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates

Issue/Holding:

¶15      An officer has the right to access objects in plain view while searching within the scope of the consent.  See State v. Johnson, 187 Wis. 2d 237, 242, 522 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1994). In order for the plain view doctrine to apply, three requirements must be met:

First,

State v. Reginald Jones / Maurice E. O’Neal, 2005 WI App 26, (AG’s) PFR filed 2/23/05
For Jones: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate
For O’Neal: Jess Martinez

Issue/Holding: Though the facts are almost indistinguishable from those in State v. Lawrence A. Williams, 2002 WI 94, 255 Wis. 2d 1, 646 N.W.2d 834, consent to search a car immediately after conclusion of a routine traffic stop was (unlike Williams) the product of an illegal detention.

State v. Earnest Alexander, 2005 WI App 235
For Alexander: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether description of a shooting suspect as a black male wearing black skull cap, black jacket and dark pants, more than a day after the shooting permitted the stop of Alexander ten blocks east of the crime scene, wearing a black skull cap, black waist-length jacket, and black pants, along with his “perceived hesitation [and] aversion to eye contact.”

Holding: The court considers the six factors listed in State v.