On Point blog, page 71 of 214
Warrantless Entry of Residence – Exigent Circumstances, Generally
State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09
For Lee: Robert E. Haney
Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence is supported when the State demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances, ¶7. Exigent circumstances include: (1) hot pursuit of suspect; (2) threat to someone’s safety; (3) risk of evidence destruction; and (4) likelihood suspect will flee, ¶9.
The court goes on to collapse the 2nd and 3rd categories of exigencies,
Recusal – Judicial Bias: Objective Bias, Generally
State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107
For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶9 Objective bias can exist in two situations. The first is where there is the appearance of bias, Gudgeon, 295 Wis. 2d 189, ¶¶23-24. “[T]he appearance of bias offends constitutional due process principles whenever a reasonable person—taking into consideration human psychological tendencies and weaknesses—concludes that the average judge could not be trusted to ‘hold the balance nice,
Recusal – Judicial Bias – Prejudgment of Issue: Effectuated Threat to Impose Maximum upon Revocation
State v. Brian K. Goodson, 2009 WI App 107
For Goodson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The reconfinement judge should have recused himself, given that at original disposition he threatened to impose the maximum if the defendant was returned to court on revocation; State v. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, deemed controlling:
¶12 The same analysis applies here.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private Government Search – Off-Duty Police Officer Acting in Private Capacity – Viewing Memory Stick Containing Child Pornography
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell
Issue/Holding1: Viewing of memory stick, concededly obtained in “private” search not covered by 4th amendment, ¶13 n. 6, by off-duty police lieutenant who was defendant’s brother-in-law, was not a “government search”:
¶14 “Private searches are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections because the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action.” State v.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Seizure and Detention by Private Security Guard
State v. Paul Anthony Butler, 2009 WI App 52, PFR filed 4/20/09
For Butler: Trisha R. Stewart Martin
Issue/Holding: Seizure and detention by security guard, until police arrived to conduct search, didn’t amount to government action so as to trigger 4th amendment analysis, under 3-factor test of State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47:
¶14 As we see from Butler’s submissions that are in the Record,
Judicial Substitution, § 971.20(5) – Request Must Be Made before Determination of Guilt
State v. William Allen Wisth, 2009 WI App 53, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Wisth: Jeremy Perri, SPD, MilwaukeeAppellate
Issue/Holding: Defendant not entitled to request substitution of judge assigned to sentencing following revocation; § 971.20(5) is limited to pre-guilt phases:
¶14 We conclude that the plain meaning of Wis. Stat. § 971.20(5) is that substitution is permitted only prior to trial. When the issue of guilt or lack of guilt is resolved,
Administrative Searches – School Search – School Grounds Extended to Parking Lot
State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh
Issue/Holding1: School grounds are extended to the school parking lot, so that the test for searches of students, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), applies to search of a student’s car parked in the lot, ¶¶15-19.
Issue/Holding2: Search of student’s car in school parking lot was reasonable:
¶21 In this case,
Contributing to Delinquency of Child, § 948.40(4)(a) – Element of “Child”: Includes 17-Year-Olds
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe
Issue/Holding:
¶29 We will assume, for purposes of Patterson’s argument, that the definition of “juvenile” in Wis. Stat. § 938.02 applies for purposes of defining “delinquency” in Wis. Stat. § 948.40. Nonetheless, Patterson’s statutory analysis ignores the fact that a seventeen-year-old is only excepted from the definition of “juvenile” for a single purpose,
Possession of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence, Possession Element – Presence of Drugs in Body
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe
Issue/Holding:
¶25 There is no dispute that testing revealed that Tanya S. had Oxycodone in her system at the relevant time. However, as Patterson argues, the presence of drugs in someone’s system, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. SeeState v.
Post-Sentencing Plea-Withdrawal – Grounds: Misapprehension re: Plea Bargain Term (State’s Authority to Argue Facts Underlying Dismissed Charge)
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09
For Wesley: Alvin Ugent
Issue/Holding:
¶24 Here, as we said, Wesley claims that he understood the term “dismissed outright” to mean that the State could never use the underlying facts against him. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. He also claims that, if the plea agreement was ambiguous,