On Point blog, page 449 of 484
First Amendment – Overbreadth – Injunction – Prostitution-Related Activity
City of Milwaukee v. Tanya M. Bean, et al., 2001 WI App 258, PFR filed 11/8/01
For Bean: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela S. Moorshead
Issue1: Whether prostitution activities in the area encompassed by the injunction were shown sufficiently to constitute a nuisance.
Holding:
¶13. Although it is true, as the appellants argue, that the infusion of prostitution in the affected areas can, on one level at least,
Equal Protection – Sex Offender Registration – Juvenile – False Imprisonment
State v. Joseph E.G., 2001 WI App 29, 240 Wis. 2d 481, 623 N.W.2d 137
For Joseph E.G.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether § 301.45(1m) (1997-98) violates equal protection and substantive due process in failing to excuse juveniles convicted of false imprisonment from sex offender registration.
Holding:
¶12 In contrast to the facts that could relieve an offender from registration for those crimes enumerated in WIS.
Expectation of Privacy – Stairway, Multiple Unit Building
State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126
For defendants: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a stairway in a multiple unit building was lawful.
Holding: Existence of reasonable expectation of privacy in a stairway leading to the upper levels of a dwelling is decided case-by-case, rather than under bright-line rule.
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – Placing Person in Police Squad
State v. Robert F. Hart, 2001 WI App 283
For Hart: John Deitrich
Issue: Whether the need to transport in a police vehicle a person, who is not in custody, is itself an exigency justifying a pat-down search for weapons.
Holding:
¶17. … With five members of the court declining to adopt a per ser rule, the law in Wisconsin is that the need to transport a person in a police vehicle is not,
Suppression Hearing – Riverside Hearing – Factual Misrepresentation
State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach
Issue: Whether the Riverside probable cause finding was tainted by a factual misrepresentation (specifically, that McAttee had been implicated by a “coconspirator”) in the police report submitted in support of continued detention.
Holding: Though describing the informant as a coconspirator “may have been legally inexact, it also may have accurately conveyed the police’s understanding,
Challenge Incarceration Program (“Boot Camp”) – §§ 973.01(3m), 302.045
State v. Ashley B. Steele, 2001 WI App 160, PFR filed 6/25/01
For Steele: Christopher William Rose
Issue: Whether sentencing eligibility for “boot camp” is determined by bright-line statutory guidelines, or by exercise of trial court discretion.
Holding:
¶12. While an offender must meet the eligibility requirements of Wis. Stat. § 302.045(2) to participate in the challenge incarceration program, pursuant to Wis.
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception – Remand for Determination
State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether evidence seized under a warrant defective because unsupported by probable cause may be admissible under the good-faith doctrine.
Holding: Given that, subsequent to trial-level litigation, the supreme court recognized the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98,
Warrants – Probable Cause
State v. Bill Paul Marquardt, 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause.
Holding:
¶18. …. The State points to several facts in the affidavits: (1) Mary’s telephone was off the hook the day she was killed, suggesting “that the perpetrator had been inside the residence”; (2) Mary was shot and stabbed,
Warrants – Failure to Make Contemporaneous Record of Telephonic Application – Reconstruction of Application
State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang
Issue/Holding:
¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.
Right to be Present – Trial Court Communication with Jury
State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court’s response to a jury request to see a written report and a transcript of a witness’s testimony — that these items were “not available” — without first seeking defense input was error.
Holding: The defendant’s presence is required at any critical stage,