On Point: 6. Suppression

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 v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and  (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).

State v. Dylan D. Radder, 2018 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision every trial-level criminal defense lawyer must read, the court of appeals affirms the denial of a motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing because the motion failed to allege sufficient facts to raise a question of disputed fact that must be resolved at a hearing. Understand the standards set out in this decision, make sure your motions attempt to adhere to them, and be prepared to argue your suppression motions satisfy them, as every prosecutor and trial judge will be eager to invoke this decision to deny your motions without a hearing.