On Point blog, page 9 of 25
Retrograde extrapolation survives Daubert challenge—again
State v. Michael Chough, 2016AP406-CR, District 2, 1/25/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Chough’s challenge to the reliability of expert testimony regarding his blood alcohol content at the time he was driving fails under State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687.
SCOW: EMT’s blood draw in jail was “under direction of a physician” and constitutionally reasonable
State v. Patrick Kozel, 2017 WI 3, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP656-CR, 1/12/16; case activity (including briefs)
Kozel, arrested for OWI-2nd and subjected to a blood draw by an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) at a county jail, challenged the draw as violating §343.305(5)(b) (2011-12) and as unconstitutional, because it was not performed “by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices.” ¶43, citing to Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771 (1966).
Citizen informant’s tip supports probable cause to arrest for possesion of heroin
State v. Jimmie C. Johnson, 2015AP1233-CR, 2015AP2260-CR, 1/11/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
When J.T. stepped out of her car in the parking lot of the West Allis Chuck E. Cheese she spotted a purple “Crown Royal” bag outside the driver’s door of the Chevy Tahoe next to her. It contained 69 aluminum foil folds. She took a photo of the license plate, went into the Chuck E. Cheese where she watched man get into the Tahoe, drive off, turn around, return to the parking spot and search for something. He then when into the Pet World next door where a video camera captured him searching for something.
State v. Adam M. Blackman, 2015AP450-CR, petition for review granted, 12/19/16
Review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (from the petition):
I. Whether the circuit court properly suppressed Mr. Blackman’s warrantless blood test because he was unconstitutionally coerced into taking the test when he was read the informing the accused form which incorrectly told him that he faced a revocation and other penalties if he refused chemical testing, when he was actually only facing a possible arrest?
II. Whether the circuit court below properly suppressed Mr. Blackman’s blood test where Mr. Blackman was unconstitutionally coerced into taking the blood test, under the totality of the circumstances, when he acquiesced to the unlawful assertion by the officer that they take blood samples in cases like his—in addition to being told that he faced a revocation and other penalties if he refused?
III. Whether section 343.305(3)(ar)2 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it coerces consent to otherwise unconstitutional searches without due process of law?
Challenges to seizure, arrest, refusal finding rejected
Washington County v. Daniel L. Schmidt, 2016AP908, District 2, 11/30/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Schmidt makes a three-pronged attack on the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a chemical test, arguing he was seized without reasonable suspicion, arrested without probable cause, and did not improperly refuse a test. The court of appeals rejects each claim.
SCOTUS asked to review Gant’s exception to the warrant requirement
SCOTUSblog has named a cert petition filed by the Maryland Public Defender “petition of the day“!! Here are the issues:
1. Under the exception to the warrant requirement announced in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009), permitting a vehicular search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle,” what quantum of particularized suspicion is required by the Fourth Amendment to justify the search?
2. May the unquantified experience of the arresting officer, alone, supply the necessary particularized suspicion to justify the vehicular search?
Wisconsin, which has trimmed the Fourth Amendment down to more like a Three and a Half Amendment, follows a per se rule requiring no particularized suspicion. See State v. Smiter, 2011 WI App 15. Under this rule, a belief is reasonable, and an officer may search a vehicle, when the recent occupant’s offense of arrest is a non-traffic infraction that could generate physical evidence. On Point will keep you posted on this petition.
Here’s hoping our Maryland comrades get their cert petition granted–even (or especially) without an amicus brief! See post below.
State v. Gary F. Lemberger, 2015AP1452-CR, petition for review granted 10/11/2016
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs); petition for review
Issues (composed by On Point)
(1) May a prosecutor argue that a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test shows consciousness of guilt?
(2) When a circuit court denies a postconviction motion based on arguably inapplicable case law, must the defendant ask the circuit court to reconsider its ruling in order to preserve for appeal the claim that the case law doesn’t apply?
Facts established probable cause to arrest and were sufficient to support guilty verdict
Village of Bayside v. Amber E. Schoeller, 2016AP256 & 2016AP257, District 1, 8/9/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s factual findings—which Schoeller doesn’t argue are clearly erroneous—doom her claims that the officer didn’t have probable cause to arrest her and that the evidence isn’t sufficient to prove she’s guilty of OWI.
Flawed, unreliable field sobriety tests deprived officer of probable cause to arrest for OWI
State v. Alejandro Herrera Ayala, 2015AP865-CR, District 3, 7/26/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s findings that the manner in which standardized field sobriety tests were administered to Herrera Ayala was “fatally flawed” because of “significant communication issues” between the officer and Herrera Ayala (a Spanish speaker with apparently limited English) and that those flaws made the SFSTs “unreliable” for purposes of determining probable cause to arrest.
Arrest, conviction of unconscious driver upheld
State v. Mark G. McCaskill, 2015AP1487-CR, District 4, 7/21/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
McCaskill’s challenges to his arrest and conviction for operating with a prohibited alcohol content don’t persuade the court of appeals.