On Point blog, page 1 of 270
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.
COA affirms TPR order in appeal challenging sufficiency of the state’s “reasonable efforts” and ADA compliance
State v. G.L., 2026AP865, 7/1/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
“Gwen” challenges the termination of her rights to her child, “Annie,” on the basis that the state presented insufficient evidence to the jury that the Division of Milwaukee Child Welfare (DMCW) made a reasonable effort to provide her with court-ordered services and that DMCW did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). COA affirms.
COA affirms suppression order because officer’s mistake of law did not provide reasonable suspicion for traffic stop.
State v. Michael P. Bundy, 2025AP1072, 6/25/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing the fruits of a traffic stop because an officer’s mistake of law regarding the driver’s suspected violation of the window tinting regulation did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
Defense win: COA reverses summary judgment on continuing denial of visitation ground and orders summary judgment for parents on same ground
Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. J.L.C. and M.M.C., 2026AP498 and 647, 6/25/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
JLC and MMC each appeal the circuit court order terminating their parental rights to their child, CMC, arguing that the court erred in granting Waupaca County’s motion for summary judgment on grounds. COA concludes that the ground on which SJ was granted, continuing denial of visitation, requires the county to prove that the parents received adequate notice of the conditions of resuming visitation, and the county cannot make this showing under the facts. Therefore, COA reverses the order and remands with directions that the circuit court grant partial summary judgment to both parents on the continuing denial of visitation ground.
Defense win: COA reverses order continuing protective placement
La Crosse County v. P.A.E., 2025AP303, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses the circuit court’s order continuing PAE’s protective placement on the basis that La Crosse County failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that PAE was so totally incapable of providing for her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.
COA rejects ineffectiveness arguments in TPR and affirms
Green County v. K.M.S., 2025AP199, 6/18/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying an exceptionally deferential review to K.M.S.’s ineffectiveness claims, COA affirms in the face of a somewhat confusing appellate record.
Defense win: COA affirms order suppressing blood test evidence due to coercion
City of Antigo v. John Paul Fermanich, 2023AP1834, 6/16/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The City of Antigo appeals an order granting John Paul Fermanich’s motion to suppress blood evidence because Fermanich’s consent to the blood draw was coerced. COA affirms in this “close case” as it is the city’s burden to demonstrate that Fermanich freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw.
COA affirms traffic judgment over pro se sufficiency challenges
County of Milwaukee v. Kent Austin Williams, 2025AP2110, 6/16/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Kent Austin Williams, pro se, challenges the circuit court’s judgment finding him guilty of speeding on the basis that Milwaukee County did not present sufficient evidence to support the violation. COA disagrees and affirms.
COA affirms juvenile adjudication, finds that juvenile’s writings were “true threats”
State v. I.T.S., , 2025AP2517, 6/17/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although I.T.S. argues that his writings composed during an in-school suspension were private and not true threats for the purposes of the First Amendment, COA affirms.
COA: Felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling statute of limitations.
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA held that felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.