On Point: E. Specific motions/hearings

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.

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. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.

R.G. v. S.P., 2022AP1876, District 4, 02/16/2023 (one judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.G. filed a petition to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to a non-marital child that he had not seen in over seven years. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G. pursued an appeal pro se, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 48.185 supported his petition in Dane County.