On Point blog, page 1 of 266
COA: Reasonable suspicion for traffic stop after report to police that vehicle hit road barrier and officer observed “unusual” driving behavior
State of Wisconsin v. Jonathan G. Berbaum, 2025AP1380-CR, 2/25/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop, which included evidence that led to his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a third offense. The COA found that a witness’s report that a vehicle hit a barrier, combined with the defendant’s erratic driving, provided reasonable suspicion to suspect the driver was operating while intoxicated.
Defense win: COA suppresses evidence from warrantless blood draw, vacates OWI conviction
State v. Brandon J. Taff, 2024AP373, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses Taff’s conviction on the basis that his warrantless blood draw was not justified by exigent circumstances, and therefore should have been suppressed.
COA holds that costs to investigate crime are recoverable as restitution, but not attorney fees.
State of Wisconsin v. Mary E. Melstrom, 2023AP1176-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a restitution award to cover the victim insurance company’s costs of investigating the cause of a house fire that was the subject of the defendant’s criminal charge but reversed the award for the victim’s attorney fees.
Defense win: COA upholds jury’s verdict in favor of TPR respondent
J.R.P. v. W.P.M., 2024AP1535, 2/19/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare sufficiency challenge pursued by the petitioner, COA applies a deferential standard of review and affirms.
COA finds there was sufficient evidence of obstructing and affirms
State v. Kyle R. Appel, 2023AP2083-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying a standard of review exceptionally deferential to a jury’s decision to convict, COA distinguishes Appel’s proffered authority and affirms.
COA rejects challenge to TPR dispositional order and affirms
State v. L.Z., 2025AP2731-32, 2/17/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although L.Z. tries to capitalize on certain statements in the court’s oral ruling as giving a foothold for her appellate challenge, the standard of review means the argument attacking a discretionary decision goes nowhere.
COA rejects challenges to discretionary restitution order and affirms
State v. Tate H. Batson, 2025AP136-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Batson tries his best to poke holes in the judge’s discretionary decision, the deferential standard of review means those arguments uniformly fail.
COA finds sufficient evidence of dangerousness and affirms protective placement
Brown County v. M.S., 2025AP1532, 2/3/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another appeal focusing on Chapter 55’s dangerousness criterion, COA holds that while the County could have done a better job at this hearing, the evidence passes muster on appeal.
COA affirms circuit court’s finding of reasonable suspicion for traffic stop resulting in OWI 3rd
State v. Troy A. Wry, 2023AP561, 2/3/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Wry appeals his conviction for OWI 3rd, arguing the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that Wry had committed, or was committing, an offense sufficient to conduct an investigatory stop of his vehicle. COA affirms.
COA affirms traffic stop for reasonable suspicion of noise ordinance violation
State v. Jacobe Michael Gimmel, 2025AP1037 & 2025AP1537, 1/29/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Gimmel appeals his conviction for OWI 2nd and the revocation of his driver’s license for refusing a chemical test. The sole issue in the consolidated appeal is whether the officer who stopped Gimmel had reasonable suspicion to do so. COA affirms, concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion that Gimmel had violated a local noise ordinance.