On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Paul K. Shanks, 2002 WI App 93, PFR filed 4/11/02

Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for sexual assault of child, notwithstanding inconsistencies and equivocations in complainant’s testimony (court stressing that certain pretrial statements she made did implicate defendant), ¶25. Court also finds evidence sufficient on element of intent: “Intent to become sexually aroused or gratified can be inferred when a man places his finger in the vagina of a two-year-old girl,”

State v. Brian B. Burke, 2002 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/29/02
For Burke: Robert H. Friebert

Issue/Holding:

¶22. We conclude that the members of the Wisconsin Constitutional Convention did not intend to create a legislative privilege from criminal arrest and prosecution when they included article IV, section 15 in the Wisconsin Constitution. The phrase “treason, felony and breach of the peace” in that section was intended to mean “all crimes.”

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an arrest for a traffic stop, lawful at inception, was unlawfully prolonged in order to obtain the driver’s consent to a strip search not reasonably related to the traffic violation.

Holding: This issue is “closely related” to one raised in State v. Gaulrapp,

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wallace voluntarily consented, or merely acquiesced, to a strip search following arrest for a minor traffic violation.

Holding:

¶19. The police made their request during the booking process and before Wallace’s bond had been posted. We concur with the circuit court’s conclusion that thirty minutes,

Village of Little Chute v. Todd A. Walitalo, 2002 WI App 211, PFR filed 8/1/02
For Walitalo: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶11. However, the arresting officer, by reading the informing the accused form, simply stated the truth: If Walitalo refused to submit to a chemical test, his driving privileges would be revoked. This statement did not involve any deceit or trickery, but instead accurately informed Walitalo of his precise legal situation. 

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wallace’s consent for a strip search encompassed the more intrusive body cavity search that ensued (Wallace bent over and spread his buttocks).

Holding:

¶29. We have concluded that Wallace voluntarily consented to a strip search, and the parties agree that a visual body cavity search was ultimately conducted.

State v. Jeffrey Stout, 2002 WI App 41, PFR filed 2/21/02
For Stout: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the police must have reasonable suspicion before seeking consent to enter a residence.

Holding:

¶17. We hold that there is no Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to seeking consent to enter a dwelling. We find support for this holding in federal automobile search cases.

State v. Tina M. Miller, 2002 WI App 150, PFR filed 6/3/03
For Miller: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Based on evidence that the dog had been trained in drug detection, the police had probable cause to search the automobile once the dog alerted them, including probable cause to search a purse within the car. ¶¶12-15

But, keep in mind this potentially important limitation,

State v. Dennis L. Daggett, 2002 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/10/02
For Daggett: Julie A. Smith

Issue: Whether a warrantless draw of blood, following OWI arrest, is necessarily unreasonable if performed at the jail rather than hospital.

Holding: There is no bright-line rule that a blood draw must be made in a hospital setting to be constitutionally reasonable. Instead, there is “a spectrum of reasonableness”: blood withdrawn by a medical professional in a medical setting is generally reasonable;

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. We conclude, however, that we need not address whether police may conduct a consensual strip search free of the statutory restrictions. Absent a constitutional violation, a court may not suppress evidence obtained in violation of a statute except where the statute ‘specifically requires suppression of wrongfully or illegally obtained evidence as a sanction.’