On Point blog, page 1 of 13
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COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.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 finds officer’s reference to an “automatic” revocation did not render consent to blood draw involuntary
City of Mequon v. Scott Sarver Lindvall, 2025AP1703, 5/13/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Although Lindvall seizes on the officer’s word choice in discussing the consequences of refusing to consent to an evidentiary blood draw, the Court ultimately finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.
COA concludes consent to blood draw was free and voluntary despite defendant’s aversion to needles.
Winnebago County v. Michael Jon Potratz, 2025AP1059, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood draw based on the factors established by SCOW in Artic .
COA rejects facial challenge to Implied Consent Law; affirms denial of motion to suppress blood results
State v. Conor Alexander Noble, 2025AP811-CR, 3/11/26, District II (1 judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Noble’s facial unconstitutionality challenge to Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law (ICL) and affirms the circuit court’s denial of Noble’s motion to suppress the blood draw results for lack of voluntary consent.
In eagerly-awaited decision, SCOW holds that police did not exceed scope of previously conducted “private search” of suspected CSAM
State v, Michael Joseph Gasper, 2026 WI 3, 1/14/26, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals (on other grounds); case activity
In a narrow decision, SCOW holds that law enforcement did not exceed the scope of a private search conducted on a file uploaded by Gasper to Snapchat account which allegedly contained CSAM and affirms.
COA holds that warrantless entry to home, authorized by young child, did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
State v. Peter J. Long, 2024AP1249-CR, 5/28/25, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity
While Long’s appeal presents some superficially interesting legal issues, ultimately COA’s dereference to the circuit court’s underlying factual findings govern the outcome here.
COA again finds that consent to blood draw was valid, distinguishing Blackman
State v. Justin Dennis Krizan, 2022AP1341-CR, 3/4/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication), case activity
Applying its recent holding in State v. Gore, 2025 WI App 11, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.3d ___ (see our post on Gore here), the COA concludes that Krizan’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent.
COA finds consent to blood draw valid in a detailed discussion of Wisconsin’s implied consent statutes recommended for publication.
State v. Christopher A. Gore, 2023AP169-CR, 1/7/25, District III (recommended for publication), case activity
The Court of Appeals held, in a decision recommended for publication, that Christopher Gore’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent, and the officer’s statement that he would seek to obtain a warrant if Gore did not consent did not invalidate his consent.