On Point blog, page 70 of 484
Police entry into backyard didn’t violate Fourth Amendment
State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2020AP1014-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); PfR granted 11/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Police lawfully entered Wilson’s backyard under the “knock and talk” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Circuit court properly exercised discretion in order juvenile to register as sex offender
State v. G.R.H., 2020AP1638, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
A juvenile adjudged delinquent for certain sex offenses must register as a sex offender unless the court permanently stays the requirement under the standards established in §§ 301.45(1m)(e) and 938.34(15m) and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1. The circuit court in this case properly applied those standards when it declined to stay the registration requirement for G.R.H.
Challenges to sentences procedurally barred
State v. War Nakula-Reginald Marion, 2019AP2206-CR & 2019AP2207-CR, District 1, 5/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Marion was given maximum consecutive sentences on multiple misdemeanor convictions, all consecutive to the reconfinement ordered after his ES in a prior case was revoked due to the new convictions. Appointed postconviction counsel filed a no-merit appeal under § 809.32 and the court of appeals affirmed the convictions.
COA again reverses ch. 51 for failure to specify grounds but again remands for a do-over
Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, 5/12/21, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted, 9/14/21, reversed, 2022 WI 40; case activity
For more than a year now, Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277, has required circuit courts imposing ch. 51 commitments to identify which statutory form of dangerousness has been proved. A little over a month ago, the court of appeals decided Rock Co. DHS v. J.E.B., holding the circuit court failed to satisfy this requirement. But the appellate court didn’t undo the commitment: it just remanded for the circuit court to decide whether the facts satisfied any of the five standards. It did this even as it declined to address J.E.B.’s other challenge: that there was insufficient evidence of any form of dangerousness. This latter claim would have required dismissal of the petition. Is the court of appeals free to refuse to consider a litigant’s claim–a claim that would that would dispose of the entire case–for no other reason than that it is granting some lesser relief?
Part I: COA affirms ch. 51 initial commitment and med order in violation of precedent
Rock County v. J.J.K., 2020AP1085, 4/29/21, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity
This is an appeal from the initial commitment and involuntary medication order entered against J.J.K. The court of appeals affirmed both contrary to published precedent on the rule against hearsay, the plain error doctrine, and procedural and substantive due process.
Part II: COA affirms ch. 51 recommitment in violation of published precedent
Rock County v. J.J.K., 2020AP2105, District IV, 5/6/21 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This is the sequel to the Rock County v. J.J.K.. 2020AP1085 above. The decision is alarming because the circuit court found J.J.K. dangerous enough for a recommitment based on the 5th standard, but the court of appeals affirmed based on the 4th standard. The opinion also further highlights the need for SCOW to elaborate its decision in Winnebago County v. C.S., 2020 WI 33, 391 Wis. 2d 35, 940 N.W.2d 875. Specifically, can a court order involuntary medication for a person undergoing recommitment without evidence that he is dangerous as defined by §51.61(1)(g)3?
Defense win! COA strikes down statute permitting the refusal of warrantless blood test to enhance OWI penalties
State v. Scott William Forrett, 2021 WI App 31, petition for review granted, 9/14/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 37; case activity (including briefs)
Wisconsin permits a driver’s prior refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test as a criminal penalty enhancer for a subsequent OWI. In an open and shut opinion that is recommended for publication, the court of appeals just declared that statutory scheme unconstitutional based on Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), and State v. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 383 Wis. 2d 147, 914 N.W.2d 120.
April 2021 publication list
On April 28, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Patrick A. Keller, 2021 WI App 22 (Confrontation Clause doesn’t apply to statements of mandatory child abuse reporter)
State v. Markell Hogan, 2021 WI App 24 (cop can testify as human trafficking expert)
Search of car of non-student in school parking lot was reasonable
State v. Blong Simba Vang, 2021 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)
The search of Vang’s car, which was parked on school property, was reasonable under the less stringent standard for searches of students established in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 324 (1985), even though Vang wasn’t a student at the school.
Odor of burning weed justified warrantless entry of home
State v. B.W.R., 2020AP1726, District 2, 4/28/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The odor of marijuana gave police probable cause to believe evidence of a drug crime would be found in B.W.R.’s home and the odor plus the occupants’ awareness the police were knocking gave the police reason to conclude the evidence would be destroyed if they took time to get a warrant.