On Point blog, page 63 of 485
TPR court properly considered evidence of prior TPRs
State v. S.T., 2021AP1278-1280, 10/26/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court terminated S.T.’s parental rights to three of her children after she brought one of them (a 5-month old twin) to the hospital with severe burns on his body. S.T. appealed arguing that during the grounds phase of the TPR trial the circuit court erroneously relied on irrelevant evidence–testimony regarding past CHIPS and TPR proceedings that predated the births of these three children.
Traffic stop based on mistake of law upheld
State v. Kyle M. Kleinschmidt, 2020AP881-Cr, 10/13/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kleinschmidt’s vehicle had two brake lights in good working order, but it also had a high-mount brake light that was not working. An officer stopped him due to the defective light and established that he was operating a vehicle while his license was revoked. Kleinschmidt argues that the officer, who based the stop on §347.14(1), lacked reasonable suspicion. Plus the correct law, § TRANS 305.15 (re high mounted brake lights), exceeds the authority granted in §347.15 and is thus invalid.
Are appeals from expired involuntary med orders ever moot?
Milwaukee County v. R.T.H., 2019AP1763, 10/12/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This decision raises an important question of first impression: Are appeals from expired involuntary medication orders ever moot? The court of appeals holds that once the involuntary med order expires, it doesn’t have to address the merits of a claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the order. We think the court of appeals is wrong. Let’s hope that “Robert” files a petition for review.
Another Ch. 51 recommitment reversed due to a circuit court’s violation of D.J.W.
Milwaukee County v. D.C.B., 2021AP581, 10/12/21, Distract 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Before a circuit court enters an order to recommit a person under Chapter 51, it is supposed to make specific factual findings with reference to the applicable standard of dangerousness in Wis. Stat. §51.20(1)(a)2. Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals reversed the recommitment order in this case because the circuit court violated this rule.
Court of appeals takes hard line on appeals from municipal court decisions
City of Port Washington v. Sandra J. Koziol, 2021AP449-450-FT, 10/6/21, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Each year, Wisconsin’s municipal courts resolve close to half of a million cases, including traffic offenses, OWIs, and other quasi-criminal matters. See data here. A party aggrieved by a municipal court judgment has a statutory right to appeal it. This unpublished opinion resolves an issue of first impression regarding the procedure for appealing municipal court judgments in a way that restricts that right and violates the statute.
GAL didn’t improperly argue best-interests standard at TPR trial; Zoom disposition hearing didn’t violate parent’s right to be present
La Crosse County DHS v. B.B. and E.B., 2020AP2030 & 2020AP2031, District 4, 9/30/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
B.B. and E.B. challenge the order terminating their parental rights, arguing that the guardian ad litem improperly invoked the children’s best interest standard during the grounds trial and that conducting the dispositional hearing via Zoom violated their due process rights. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.
COA affirms probable cause finding in alcohol test refusal case
State v. Edward R. Gasse, 2021AP484, 9/29/2021, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Gasse arrived at the police station shortly after midnight; officers had observed him about 80 minutes prior at his residence and believed him to be drunk. He initially said he’d driven there but later changed his story; video surveillance revealed that he had, in fact, driven. After some limited field sobriety testing, the officer at the station arrested him and he refused to consent to chemical testing. He appeals the circuit court’s determination that there was probable cause for the arrest and thus that the refusal citation was lawful.
COA upholds probable cause finding to request PBT
State v. Michael T. Paczkowski, 2021AP340, 9/29/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Paczkowski crashed his motorcycle, and responding deputies requested that he take a preliminary breath test. He agreed and blew a .149. The circuit court held that he deputies lacked the requisite probable cause to ask for the test, but the court of appeals disagrees and reverses.
September 2021 publication list
On September 29, 2021, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal-law related decision:
State v. Joel R. Davis, 2021 WI App 65 (police unlawfully prolonged traffic stop to research motorist’s bond conditions).
Termination of parental rights supported by appropriate exercise of discretion
State v. D.W., 2021AP1290, District 1, 9/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in terminating D.W.’s parental rights because the court considered all the relevant factors under § 48.426(3) in reaching its decision.