On Point blog, page 1 of 89
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.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 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 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: 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State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity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.
COA: Driver suspected of operating under the influence not entitled to alternative test to measure intoxication until arrest.
Portage County v. Adam N. Dombrowski, 2025AP204, 5/21/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that a driver suspected of operating while intoxicated was not entitled to an alternative test to measure the driver’s blood, breath, or urine until he was arrested. The circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood test were therefore affirmed.
COA finds officer’s reference to an “automatic” revocation did not render consent to blood draw involuntary
City of Mequon v. Scott Sarver Lindvall, 2025AP1703, 5/13/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Lindvall seizes on the officer’s word choice in discussing the consequences of refusing to consent to an evidentiary blood draw, the Court ultimately finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.
COA affirms convictions for election fraud and misconduct in public office by Milwaukee Election Commission’s deputy director.
State v. Kimberly D. Zapata, 2025AP425-CR, 5/12/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
The Deputy Director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission was convicted at trial of election fraud and misconduct in public office after she had fictitious military absentee ballots sent to a state legislator to publicize the potential for election fraud with such ballots. In a decision recommended for publication, the COA affirmed her convictions because the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find she “obtained” the ballots for purposes of election fraud and acted in her public capacity.
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 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.
Seventh Circuit finds Wisconsin did not violate plaintiff’s civil rights by denying permit to carry a concealed weapon after court martial conviction for a misdemeanor drug offense.
Kenneth Karwacki v. Josh Kaul, No. 25-2361, 4/2/26
In a brief opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims that Wisconsin violated his constitutional rights by denying his application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, the Seventh Circuit Court provides a primer on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and summarizes recent federal cases addressing Second Amendment challenges to laws prohibiting possessing firearms due to criminal convictions.