On Point blog, page 2 of 144
COA affirms traffic stop for reasonable suspicion of noise ordinance violation
State v. Jacobe Michael Gimmel, 2025AP1037 & 2025AP1537, 1/29/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
Gimmel appeals his conviction for OWI 2nd and the revocation of his driver’s license for refusing a chemical test. The sole issue in the consolidated appeal is whether the officer who stopped Gimmel had reasonable suspicion to do so. COA affirms, concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion that Gimmel had violated a local noise ordinance.
SCOTUS reverses decision granting new homicide trial and accepts cert. to review geofence warrants; while Justice Jackson dissents from shutting courthouse door to prison inmates.
In its January 2026 orders, SCOTUS reminds the Fourth Circuit about AEDPA deference in reversing decision ordering a new trial and grants certiorari to determine whether a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, while Justice Jackson dissents from banning frequent inmate filers from commencing a case without paying the filing fee.
SCOTUS applies emergency aid exception to warrant requirement “without further gloss;” declines to adopt probable cause standard
Case v. Montana, USSC No. 24-624, 1/14/2026, affirming Montana v. Case, 2024 MT 165, 417 Mont. 354, 553 P.3d 985; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS unanimously holds that Brigham City v. Stuart‘s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render aid applies “without further gloss” and was satisfied here. While SCOTUS affirms the Montana Supreme Court’s judgment, the Court does not adopt the lower court’s reasoning in full.
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: OWI suspect was not under arrest when transported to police station to perform field sobriety tests.
State of Wisconsin v. Brenda L. Roszina, 2024AP898, 1/13/26, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of field sobriety tests because the investigatory stop did not ripen into an arrest without probable cause when police transported the defendant from a parking lot to the police station one mile away to perform the tests.
COA expresses skepticism about window tint argument and upholds OWI stop
State v. Joseph M. Heroff, 2025AP684-CR, 12/23/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA applies general reasonable suspicion principles to uphold a stop based on overly dark tint, holding that the officer’s testimony was sufficient and that he did not need to articulate any specific expertise as to the legal tint percentage.
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
COA: Police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to suspected drunk driver although officer commented to driver that not all of the warnings applied.
State v. Sam M. Shareef, 2025AP661, 12/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA holds that police reasonably conveyed implied consent warnings to a suspected drunk driver although the officer told the driver that some of the circumstances described on the Informing the Accused form did not apply to him.
COA issues first impression decision on constitutionality of warrant to search contents of smartphone, holds “the warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the [smart]phone,” and its authorization must be “limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established… in the warrant’s supporting affidavit”
State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.
COA affirms denial of suppression motion in OWI 3rd case based on concession
State v. Richard T. Weske, 2025AP154-CR, 11/5/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Weske appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the investigatory traffic stop constituted an unreasonable seizure because the officer was outside his jurisdiction and was therefore without authority to conduct the stop. COA affirms, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop for a suspected OWI, and Weske conceded that the officer had the authority to do so outside his jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 349.03(4).