On Point: 30. Pretrial proceedings

State v. Michael R. Meton, 2025AP141-CR, 8/27/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Meton challenges the judgment convicting him of operating with a prohibited alcohol content, 2nd offense. He argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress the blood result after police administered a preliminary breath test without first asking for his consent. COA agrees with the circuit court that suppression of the blood draw because police had independent grounds apart from the PBT to arrest Meton on suspicion of operating while intoxicated.

State v. Rebecca Lea Kamm, 2024AP1944-CR, 8/28/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA held that the defendant forfeited her argument that the State did not comply with Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1) by not disclosing to her counsel video evidence within a reasonable time before trial.  Although the evidence was not provided to counsel until the morning of trial, the issue was forfeited because counsel did not object to its admission.

Fond du Lac County v. Andrew Joseph Ludwig, 2025AP183, 8/20/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ludwig appeals from a judgment convicting him of OWI 1st, and challenges the order denying his suppression motion. He contends that the sheriff deputies “unconstitutionally detain[ed him]” by failing to conduct the OWI investigation in a sufficiently diligent manner. COA disagrees and affirms.

State of Wisconsin v. Alex Mark Hagen, 2024AP1180, 3/6/25 District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reversed the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence of field sobriety tests and their fruits, finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

State v. Peter John Long, 2023AP2300, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Long appeals pro se from his refusal conviction, contending the officer lacked probable cause to arrest for OWI. COA affirms.

City of Platteville v. Travis Jon Knautz, 2024AP1291 & 1292, 12/5/24, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In this drunk driving forfeiture case, the city appeals an order granting Knautz’s motion to suppress all of the evidence that police obtained after an investigatory traffic stop. The COA affirms, concluding that the city failed to show that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop.

State v. Joseph Blankenship, 2024AP791-CR, 11/7/24, District IV (one judge decision; not eligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order granting Joseph Blankenship’s motion to suppress because police did not have reasonable suspicion to direct him out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.

State v. Michael Joseph Gasper, 2023AP2319, 10/30/24, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court held that an officer’s warrantless inspection of a cyber tip digital video file provided to the officer and identified as child pornography by a private internet service provider constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The COA concludes that Gasper did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the video, which he uploaded to Snapchat in violation of the terms of service and reverses.

State v. Richard A. Hoeft, 2021AP1636, 10/1/24, District 3 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Hoeft, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of fraud on an innkeeper and an order denying his postconviction motion. Hoeft raises numerous claims on appeal, all of which the COA rejects as “largely undeveloped and lacking merit” and affirms.

State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity

Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.