On Point blog, page 192 of 214
Consecutive Sentences – Sentence Consecutive to Future Revocation
State v. James E. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432
Issue: Whether a sentence can be ordered to run “consecutive to revocation” when the defendant’s parole has not yet been revoked.
Holding: A court has authority, under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a), to make the current sentence consecutive to a revocation of parole, even though the revocation has not yet occurred.
Consecutive Sentences — Authority to Stay Sentence Until Release or Discharge on Ch. 980 Commitment
State v. David Carneal White, 2000 WI App 147, 237 Wis.2d 699, 615 N.W.2d 667
For White: Jeffrey A. Kingsley
Issue: Whether a court has authority to stay a sentence until the defendant is released or discharged from an otherwise unrelated Ch. 980 commitment.
Holding: The purposes of § 971.17 NGI and Ch. 980 SVP commitments being similar (¶¶8-9), the reasoning of State v.
Warrants – Arrest Warrant as Authority to Enter of Third-Party Residence
State v. Antonion Blanco, Nora M. Al-Shammari, 2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis.2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512
For Blanco: Michael P. Jakus
Issue: Whether an arrest warrant provided authority for the police to enter the residence of a third party and arrest the person named in the warrant.
Holding:
¶10 An arrest warrant authorizes the police to “enter the suspect’s residence to execute the warrant if there is reason to believe he will be found there;
Warrants – No-Knock Authorization – Sufficiency of Showing of Danger
State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208, affirmed in pertinent part, but reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶21-26
For Eason (in SCt): Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the no-knock warrant was supported by reasonable suspicion that announcing police presence would create danger.
Holding: The showing wasn’t sufficient to abrogate announcement: though the warrant noted the occupants’
Warrants – Scope of Authorized Search – Plain View – Computer Files
State v. Keith Schroeder, 2000 WI App 128, 237 Wis.2d 575, 613 N.W.2d 911
For Schroeder: Kevin D. Musolf
Issue/Holding: Inspection of child pornography on a computer, found during a warrant-authorized search of a computer for unrelated material, was in plain view so as to be subject to seizure without a separate warrant:
13 In order for the plain view doctrine to apply: “(1) the evidence must be in plain view;
Warrants – Scope of Authorized Search
State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a search of documents exceeded the scope of a warrant authorizing a search for currency, among other things.
Holding: Because the warrant authorized a search for currency, the officers were allowed to look through documents where bills could have been hidden,
Forfeiture — Vehicle Used in Crime — Proportionality Test
State v. William W. Boyd, 2000 WI App 208, 238 Wis.2d 693, 618 N.W.2d 251
Issue: Whether forfeiture of the entire value of a $28,000 vehicle which transported a weapon used in a crime was excessive, especially in light of the maximum fine of $10,000 for the crime.
Holding: Applying the proportionality test mandated by United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S.
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – “Identification Search”
State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶1 … When a person provides oral identification to a police officer conducting a Terry stop and request for identification, may the officer perform a limited search for identifying papers when the information provided is not confirmed by police records?
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – “Collective Knowledge” Doctrine
State v. Bruce E. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis.2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210
For Black: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the “collective knowledge” doctrine applies when the information in the possession of one police officer is not in fact communicated to another officer.
Holding: ¶17 n. 4:
(I)n order for the collective-information rule to apply, such information must actually be passed to the officer before he or she makes an arrest or conducts a search.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Identified 911 Caller
State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182
For Sisk: Elvis Banks
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself.
Holding:
¶8. Here, because the caller gave what he said was his name, the trial court erred in viewing the call as an anonymous one.