On Point: 1. Consent

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 .

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.

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.

State v. Peter J. Long, 2024AP1249-CR, 5/28/25, District II (not recommended for publication); case activity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.

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.

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.

State v. Richard Chad Quinlan, 2022AP1855-1857, 8/17/2023, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)

Two DNR wardens suspected Quinlan had been engaging in some illegal hunting practices. They approached his cabin in plain clothes and in an unmarked truck. Quinlan’s mother was outside; the wardens identified themselves and said they wanted to talk to Quinlan. The mother said he was home and pointed to the cabin. When the wardens knocked on the door Quinlan’s girlfriend, who one warden recognized, responded “yeah” when asked if they could come in. Within three seconds Quinlan, who was inside, also said it was alright for the wardens to be there. The wardens left after some conversation and Quinlan was eventually cited for violations.

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).

County v. Buffalo v. Kevin J. Rich, 2020AP1526, 6/7/22, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejected all three of Rich’s challenges to his OWI 1st conviction. It held that the deputy did have reasonable suspicion to stop Rich’s jeep and to expand the stop to require field sobriety tests. It also held that even though Rich gave six breath samples, he consented to and completed just one breath test.

State v. Terence S. O’Haire, 2021AP564, District 4, 11/4/21, (i-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

O’Haire argued that an officer coerced his consent to a PBT , so its results and his refusal to submit to an evidentiary breath test should have been suppressed. The officer told O’Haire that he didn’t have to consent to a PBT, but then the officer threatened to take O’Haire to jail if he refused. When O’Haire hesitated, the officer ordered him to turn around and place his arms behind his back. The court of appeals held that the officer’s threat did not vitiate O’Haire’s consent.