On Point: Published 1999

State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte.

Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture.

Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment imposed by s. 302.46(1).”  Section 302.46(1), 

State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial.

Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation and prosecution; and because the examiners were on the state’s witness list,

State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte

Issue/Holding: The $20 fee for the clerk of court under § 814.60(1) is allocated on a per-count, rather than per-case, basis.

State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski

Holding: Jackson failed his burden of production that the state violated his rights (more concretely: unless the hospital personnel were acting as state’s agents, there would be no governmental interference with his rights under the fourth amendment).

State v. Dennis Moslavac, 230 Wis. 2d 338, 602 N.W.2d 150 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moslavac: Michael S. Holzman.

Issue/Holding: The knock-and-announce rule does not apply when the target premises are unoccupied.

Police have authority to forcibly execute a search warrant when the premises are unoccupied. It follows that the knock-and-announce rule doesn’t apply to unoccupied premises, the purposes of the rule not being served if no one’s there.

State v. Domingo G. Ramirez, 228 Wis.2d 561, 598 N.W.2d 247 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ramirez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: When the state searches mail prior to delivery to a residence, and the addressee is not a resident, that person has a (“minimal”) burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy in the package. This requirement occupies a middle ground, between a presumptive expectation of privacy and a requirement that the “challenger”

Tayr Kilaab Al Ghashiyah (Kahn) v. McCaughtry, 230 Wis.2d 587, 602 N.W.2d 307 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kahn: Walter W. Stern.

Issue: Whether a prison inmate may be strip-searched, under the fourth amendment, upon being taken to or from segregation.

Holding: “(W)e conclude that a prison inmate in segregation status does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in his body that permits a Fourth Amendment challenge to the visual inspections to which Casteel was subjected.”

State v. Robert E. Frankwick, 229 Wis.2d 406, 599 N.W.2d 893 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Frankwick: Wendy A. Patrickus

Issue/Holding: Frankwick’s truck was ordered seized and forfeited, per § 346.65(6), following OWI convictions. However, someone had perfected a lien, the day before the convictions, and the trial court voided the lien after concluding that it had been filed in bad faith. The court of appeals reverses: § 346.65 (6) doesn’t speak to perfection of liens,

State v. Louis Taylor, 226 Wis.2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Taylor: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: Taylor walked out the back door as police were knocking on the front door to execute a warrant for someone else, in an area described as “high drug … high gang.” The police were entitled to seize him:

We agree with the trial court that the totality of the facts supports a reasonable basis for Veselik’s suspicion that something unlawful was afoot with Taylor.  

State v. Curtis M. Agacki, 226 Wis.2d 349, 595 N.W.2d 31 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Agacki: John M. Carroll.

Issue: “(W)hether whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege can prevent a police officer, at a suppression motion hearing, from testifying about a psychotherapist’s account of a patient’s disclosure, which provided the basis for the officer’s probable cause to search the patient.”

Holding: Because the statements involved the patient’s threat of imminent harm to another,