On Point blog, page 28 of 141
Probable cause to arrest for OWI found
State v. Michael R. Pace, 2018AP1428, District 2, 1/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The officer who arrested Pace for OWI had probable cause to do so.
Challenges to search warrant rejected
State v. Andrew Anton Sabo, 2017AP2289-CR, District 1, 1/29/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sabo challenges the search warrant that led to the seizure of evidence from his home, arguing that the affidavit in support of the warrant didn’t establish probable cause, that he is entitled to a Franks-Mann hearing because the affidavit contained false information, and that the identity of the citizen informant who was the source of much of the information in the affidavit should be disclosed because there are reasons to doubt the informant’s reliability and credibility. The court of appeals disagrees.
Challenges to seizure at apartment door and protective sweep of apartment rejected
State v. Jordan Bennett Micklevitz, 2018AP637-CR, District 1, 1/23/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Micklevitz’s challenges to the search of his apartment.
Defense win! Driving near scene of crime does not create reasonable suspicion for stop
State v. Brady R. Adams, 2018AP174-CR, 1/15/19, District 3 (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Noting that no Wisconsin precedent addresses the issue in this case, the court of appeals follows United States v. Bohman, 683 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2012) and holds that the suspicion of illegal activity in a place is not enough to transfer that suspicion to anyone who leaves that place such as would justify an investigatory detention.
SCOTUS to decide (in a Wisconsin case!) whether “implied consent” is constitutional consent
Gerald Mitchell v. Wisconsin, USSC No. 18-6210, certiorari granted 1/11/19
Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Challenges to arrest, search warrants rejected
State v. Eric R. Burrows, 2018AP770-CR, District 2, 12/26/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Burrows sent threatening and harassing letters to E.W., arranged inflammatory and derogatory voicemail messages on her phone, and delivered a baby python to her apartment. He argues the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for stalking and to search his car and other property. The court of appeals disagrees.
Police encounter with defendant in store vestibule wasn’t a seizure
State v. William J. Smith, 2018AP320-CR, District 1, 12/11/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The encounter between police and Smith wasn’t a seizure, so the search of Smith wasn’t the fruit of an illegal seizure.
Defense win! SCOW holds closing door on officer wasn’t consent to enter
State v. Faith N. Reed, 2018 WI 109, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1609; case activity (including briefs)
Here’s something not seen in a while: our state supreme court suppressing evidence because the police violated the Fourth Amendment.
FST results provided probable cause for OWI arrest
Grant County v. Kenneth Jay Raney, Sr., 2018AP700, 12/6/18, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury convicted Raney of IWI, 1st offense. On appeal, he represented himself, which caused the court of appeals a lot of frustration. Opinion, ¶2. It rejected most of his arguments as being forfeited, undeveloped, or contradicted by the record. His one preserved argument–whether the field sobriety test results established probable cause–failed on the merits.
Court of appeals again asks SCOW to decide whether “implied consent” is really consent
State v. Philip J. Hawley, 2015AP1113, District 4, 11/21/18; case activity (including briefs)
Our supreme court has, three times, set out to decide whether the implied-consent statute supplies “consent” in a Fourth Amendment sense, such that it constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement. Three times, it has failed to reach a binding majority on the question–or has it? The court of appeals, in this certification, suggests perhaps the supreme court has the answer already, depending how you count the votes.