On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause to believe that the defendant currently possessed child pornography.

Holding:

¶17. “[E]very probable cause determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of the circumstances.” State v.

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement by authorizing seizure of the following: “[p]hotographs, movies, slides, videotape, negatives, and/or undeveloped film which would tend to identify … any other juvenile”; and “[m]agazines, books, movies, and photographs depicting nudity and/or sexual activities of juveniles or adults,

State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: Lawton & Cates

Issue/Holding:

¶1. The criminal complaint in this action charges Charles Chvala, a senator in the Wisconsin Legislature, with extortion, misconduct in public office, and violations of campaign finance statutes. The issue on appeal is whether, as Chvala contends, Wis. Stat. § 757.13 (2001-02) prohibits the trial court from scheduling the trial in this case before the last general business floor session ends on March 11,

State v. Juan M. Orta, 2003 WI App 93
For Orta: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2 … (A)n individual who occupies a public restroom stall does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she occupies it with another individual, leaves the door slightly ajar and unlatched, and evinces no indication that the stall is being used for its intended purpose.

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: A police officer’s stepping into the threshold of an apartment, preventing the occupant from closing the door, amounted to an “entry,” thereby triggering the fourth amendment warrant requirement. ¶¶10-11, following State v. Johnson, 177 Wis. 2d 224, 227, 501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1993); and noting that “(t)he police practice of putting a foot in the doorway appears to be a common and widespread practice,

State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03
For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn

Issue/Holding: Right to seek adjournment of a forfeiture action until after “adjudication” of the underlying criminal proceeding, § 973.076(2), terminates upon trial-level disposition:

¶18. While the term “adjudication” is not itself specifically defined in the statutes, its meaning can be ascertained from an examination of the definitions of other related terms.

State v. One 1997 Ford and David Beck, 2003 WI App 128, PFR filed 6/6/03
For Beck: Adam B. Stephens, Alex Flynn

Issue/Holding: Although a party must “show strict compliance with the requirements of” § 801.10(4)(a) when service is challenged, it is not necessary to “submit an affidavit in which the process server specifically states that he or she served the defendant with ‘authenticated’ copies or did so to the best of his or her knowledge.”

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Continued detention, in order to administer field sobriety tests, was supported by reasonable suspicion, given the defendant-driver’s mild odor of alcohol as well as ambiguity surrounding the cause of the fatal accident. “Thus, one reasonable possibility was that Colstad struck the child with his pickup truck because his judgment and driving skills were impaired by alcohol.”

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Prolonged detention of the driver at the scene of a fatal accident did not transmute a temporary stop into an arrest:

¶17 Colstad argues that the duration of his detention was unreasonable because the officer directed him to wait, instead of questioning Colstad sufficiently to dispel or confirm the officer’s suspicions,

State v. Bruce A. Kassube, 2003 WI App 64
For Kassube: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶7. We conclude, however, that the totality of the circumstances supports a reasonable basis for James’s suspicion. James had known Kassube between nine and twelve years and had never known Kassube to have a driver’s license at any time during that period. Further, within eleven months of the stop, Kassube informed James that he still did not have a license.