On Point: I. Suppression hearings

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Franzen: Timothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Suppression Hearing – Pleading Requirements for Evidentiary Hearing

Suppression hearing isn’t required on motion which challenged probable cause to administer PBT but failed to specify the relief sought.

¶6        WISCONSIN STAT. § 971.30 deals with the required form of motions and pleadings in criminal matters,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Jenkins: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing

¶2 n.2:

Jenkins’ motion papers were inadequate and the circuit court would have been correct in denying him an evidentiary hearing. All Jenkins filed was a one-page motion with the assertion the officers had looked inside his windows;

court of appeals decision (i-judge; not for publication); for Rice: Tracey A. Wood; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Search & Seizure – Denial of Motion to Suppress without Evidentiary Hearing

¶6        Regarding the applicability of [State v.] Garner [, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996) to the present case, we find no published cases applying Garner’s modified Nelson test to a pretrial motion to suppress anything other than witness identification evidence.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Immaterial differences of memory don’t establish the “deliberate falsity or reckless disregard” for truth required to trigger a Franks hearing, ¶¶17-21; nor is such a hearing mandated in the absence of specific request, ¶22.

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Expert testimony is not a prerequisite for admission of a PBT result at a suppression hearing. ¶29.

State v. Harold C. Mikkelson, 2002 WI App 152
For Mikkelson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state waived an appellate argument in opposition to suppression by not raising it at the suppression hearing.

Holding:

¶14 “The waiver rule serves several important objectives. Raising issues at the [circuit] court level allows the …. court to correct or avoid the alleged error in the first place,

State v. Jeffrey L. Loranger, 2002 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/22/02
For Loranger: Richard B. Jacobson, James C. Murray

Issue: Whether the search warrant was based on intentionally or recklessly false averments, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

Holding:

¶23. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the issuing court commissioner had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.

State v. Eddie McAttee, 2001 WI App 262
For McAttee: Russell D. Bohach

Issue: Whether the Riverside probable cause finding was tainted by a factual misrepresentation (specifically, that McAttee had been implicated by a “coconspirator”) in the police report submitted in support of continued detention.

Holding: Though describing the informant as a coconspirator “may have been legally inexact, it also may have accurately conveyed the police’s understanding,

State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski

Holding: Jackson failed his burden of production that the state violated his rights (more concretely: unless the hospital personnel were acting as state’s agents, there would be no governmental interference with his rights under the fourth amendment).