On Point blog, page 1 of 90
COA rejects probable cause, Franks-Mann and spoliation challenges, affirms PAC & refusal judgments
Portage County v. Carter Townsend Andreae, 2024AP1330 & 1331, 9/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Andreae’s challenges to the circuit court’s denial of his three pretrial motions and affirms the refusal and PAC 1st.
COA certifies two more THC/hemp issues to SCOW.
State v. Kevin Jones, 2025AP1539-CR, 9/8/26, District IV; case activity (including briefs)
On the heels of its certification last month in Bethke (see our post here) asking SCOW to determine whether Wisconsin’s legalization of hemp requires the State to prove as an element of the offense of possessing tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) that a substance contains greater than 0.3 percent of THC, the COA certified two additional issues for SCOW.
COA rejects circuit court’s factual findings in speeding appeal
State v. Jeremy Kris Pool, 2025AP1228, 8/20/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare case where COA opts to critique and then ultimately reject the factual findings of the circuit court, COA concludes the lower court erred in determining Pool’s speed. It rejects his argument that the citation was improperly amended during the trial.
COA asks SCOW to clarify what must be proven in THC cases
State v. Aaron AJ Bethke, 2025AP1383-CR, 8/4/26, District III; case activity (including briefs)
In a rare case where the State believes the pattern jury instructions get it wrong, COA asks SCOW to settle an important burden of proof issue for marijuana prosecutions.
COA rejects evidentiary challenges to OWI conviction.
Town of Geneva v. Terry Douglas Litts, II, 2025AP1039, 8/5/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA rejected the defendant’s evidentiary challenges and affirmed his convictions after a court trial for operating under the influence and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration.
Defense Win: COA affirms circuit court order suppressing blood test
State of Wisconsin v. Jorge Luis Perez-Aldape, 2026AP642-CR, 7/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a unique OWI case, COA relies on SCOW guidance to uphold the circuit court’s order suppressing blood evidence due to a failure to read the person the Informing the Accused Form.
COA holds that consent to blood test was voluntary and rejects challenges to OWI conviction
County of Milwaukee v. Troy Michael Tordoer, 2024AP2492, 7/28/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Tordoer claims that he was coerced into consenting to an evidentiary blood draw, COA agrees with the circuit court that Tordoer’s consent was voluntary.
COA finds reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop to investigate for OWI and probable cause to arrest.
Village of Grafton v. Blake S. Barnes, 2026AP160, 7/15/26, 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 his stop and arrest for speeding and operating while intoxicated where the defendant drove 48 miles per hour on a road posted for 25 miles per hour at 12:30 a.m., the officer smelled alcohol in the vehicle, the defendant exhibited glassy eyes, admitted he drank alcohol that night, and failed field sobriety tests.
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.