On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Calvin R. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261
For Kolk: Michael Zell

Issue/Holding:

¶12      … Though there is some confusion in the case law, we believe that the distinction is that a confidential informant is a person, often with a criminal past him- or herself, who assists the police in identifying and catching criminals, while a citizen informant is someone who happens upon a crime or suspicious activity and reports it to police. 

State v. Calvin R. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261
For Kolk: Michael Zell

Issue/Holding: Information provided by a named, citizen informant (that Kolk had picked up drugs in Milwaukee and would be driving to Madison) was insufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity:

¶17      To recapitulate, the police were able to corroborate: (1) Kolk’s identity; (2) what kind of vehicle he drove; and (3) the fact that he would drive it,

State v. Eugene Patton, 2006 WI App 235
For Patton: Daniel R. Clausz

Issue/Holding

¶10   Under appropriate circumstances, an informant’s tip can provide a law enforcement officer with reasonable suspicion to effectuate a Terry stop. Rutzinski, 241 Wis.  2d 729, ¶17;  J.L., 529 U.S. at 270. However, before acting on an informant’s tip,

State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123
For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13      In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that “[w]e adhere to the view that a person is ‘seized’ only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained[,]” id.

State v. Eugene Patton, 2006 WI App 235
For Patton: Daniel R. Clausz

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to detain on the basis of an anonymous tip, where the suspects not only matched the description of the anonymously-reported armed robbery, but also engaged in potentially suspicious behavior in response to police presence.

Holding:

¶21   Thus, the instant case has more than J.L.

State v. Calvin R. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261
For Kolk: Michael Zell

Issue/Holding: The (lawful) traffic stop’s purpose concluded when the officer returned Kolk’s license and registration and issued his warning; however, the officer had not released Kolk from the temporary detention caused by the traffic stop when he next asked for consent to search the car and as a result Kolk’s ensuing consent was tainted,

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶19      Wisconsin Stat. § 940.10(1) provides that a person who “causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony.” The term “negligent” as used in § 940.10 requires proof of “criminal negligence.” See Wis.

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶34      In sum, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for jurors to reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Schutte’s conduct prior to the collision was criminally negligent within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 939.25 and 940.10. The State’s evidence established not only that Schutte’s car crossed the highway centerline,

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court invaded the jury’s province when it instructed that the court of appeals had held in State v. Johannes, 229 Wis. 2d 215, 598 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999) that a criminally negligent act had occurred when a car drove across the centerline and that unanimous agreement was unnecessary as to why that act occurred.

State v. Reinier A. Ravesteijn, 2006 WI App 250
For Ravesteijn: Rudolph L. Oldeschulte

Issue/Holding: Kidnapping is mitigated from a Class B to Class C felony if the victim is released without permanent physical injury prior to the first witness’s testimony, ¶17. When accepting a guilty plea to Class B kidnapping the court must ascertain a factual basis for excluding the Class C offense, at least where there is some evidence in the record to support it,