On Point blog, page 1 of 269
COA affirms extending involuntary commitment based on history of not taking medication and suicidal ideation.
Walworth County v. D.J.F., 2025AP2522, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order extending D.J.F.’s involuntary commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.
COA finds motorist not in Miranda custody during traffic stop
State of Wisconsin v. Kara S. Kluck, 2023AP952-CR, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Despite the presence of multiple officers, COA finds the test for custody is not satisfied by this interaction and affirms.
COA rejects challenges to TPR dispositional order
Brown County Health &Human Services v. J.L., 2026AP176, 5/1/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Julie” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition as to two factors of consideration. However, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.
COA: Community caretaking function does not justify seizing a witness to a traffic accident.
State v. William A. Anderson, 2025AP796, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because law enforcement’s community caretaker function did not justify seizing a possible witness to a motorcycle accident.
COA affirms commitment order under third standard and finds Ch. 55 exception does not apply
Washington County v. J.E.C., 2025AP2798, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA relies on the respondent’s frequent absconding from her group home to find dangerousness and also holds that the existing Ch. 55 order is insufficient to meet J.E.C.’s needs.
COA concludes consent to blood draw was free and voluntary despite defendant’s aversion to needles.
Winnebago County v. Michael Jon Potratz, 2025AP1059, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood draw based on the factors established by SCOW in Artic .
COA holds officers had reasonable suspicion to justify Act 79 search of vehicle
State v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood, 2023AP1763-CR, 4/28/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Spottswood appeals the circuit court’s denial of his suppression motion after having entered a plea to receiving or concealing stolen property. On appeal, he again challenges the warrantless search of his vehicle, contending that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit an offense sufficient to justify the search under 2013 Wis. Act 79 and WIS. STAT. § 973.09(1d).
COA rejects multiple challenges to TPR and affirms
Monroe County Department of Human Services v. A.S., 2026AP65-66, 4/23/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although A.S. raises multiple challenges to this TPR, COA uniformly finds her arguments unavailing.
Defense Wins: COA reverses commitment order and order to continue commitment based on insufficient evidence of dangerousness.
Jackson County v. D.C., 2025AP1838 & 2025AP1839, 4/23/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed D.C.’s commitment order and the order extending his commitment because the County did not meet its burden to establish he was dangerous.
COA determines any error by State commenting at trial on defendant asserting her right to silence was harmless.
State v. Elizabeth A. Erickson, 2025AP1150-CR, 4/22/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct and the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for postconviction relief alleging her counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s comments at trial that she did not tell police about a dog causing injuries to the victim. The COA did not address whether the State’s comments violated the defendant’s right against self-incrimination, but determined any error was harmless.