On Point: B. Search warrants

City of Monona v. Erick J. Erickson, 2024AP312, District IV, 5/30/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Erick J. Erickson’s conviction following a bench trial for operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration and revocation of his operating privileges because he unreasonably refused to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT).  COA found that the circuit court correctly denied Erickson’s motion to suppress because police had probable cause to request the PBT and probable cause to arrest Erickson.

City of Delafield v. Shawn M. Office, 2024AP227, 2/26/25 District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms Office’s OWI 1st conviction, concluding that his arrest was supported by probable cause because sufficient evidence existed to reasonably believe that Office been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.

State v. Mark T. Solheim, 2024AP239, District II, 9/18/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In its decision reversing the circuit court’s order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant for a blood draw, the Court of Appeals reminds that Franks and its Wisconsin counterpart Anderson require defendants challenging the veracity of an affidavit in support of a search warrant to do more than show the affidavit contained false information, but also that the officer knew the information was false at the time it was asserted and included it intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.

City of Mequon v. Schumacher, 2023AP2411, 7/3/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA determines person suspected of driving under the influence does not have right under implied consent statute, Wis. Stat.  § 343.305, to refuse blood test if the person offers to take a breath or urine test instead.

State v. Joseph S. Schenian, 2023AP2017-CR, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite Schenian’s best efforts to do away with a damaging PBT result, COA rejects his arguments and affirms.

State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, 2022AP2051, 1/11/24, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Although Beyer labors mightily at conjuring up legal arguments for reversal, COA is uniformly unpersuaded and unimpressed by his arguments and affirms.

State v. Laquanda N. Strawder, 2022AP2112, 1/17/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court held that police lacked probable cause to arrest Strawder for OWI and suppressed the resulting evidence, including her breath test results. The state appealed, claiming the circuit court’s factual findings and analysis were so lacking the court of appeals should review the factual record ab initio. The court of appeals thinks the trial court did the proper analysis and made sufficient factual findings, but disagrees with its legal conclusion. In the facts as found by the trial court, the court of appeals sees probable cause to arrest, and thus reverses and remands for the prosecution to continue.

State v. Lauren Dannielle Peterson, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Peterson’s circuit court win is short-lived after the court of appeals concludes that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate an OWI investigation and probable cause existed to ask Peterson to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT).

State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2022AP2060-CR, 10/12/23, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision recommended for publication, COA clarifies that the “execution” of a search warrant does not include forensic analysis that can occur weeks or months later. Accordingly, even though those activities may occur outside the statutory window, this does not create a statutory (as opposed to constitutional) argument for suppression.

State v. Nicholas Anthony Stilwell, 2022AP1839, 7/20/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This case has facts remarkably like those of State v. Cundy, a recommended-for-publication case the court of appeals decided the week before. Police received a report of a hit-and-run of a parked vehicle, and learned the truck that did the hitting and running was registered to Stilwell. They went to Stilwell’s apartment and found the truck parked nearby. They buzzed Stilwell and he answered the door. They eventually entered the apartment and determined, including by the use of a PBT, that Stilwell was intoxicated, though he denied having driven his truck. They cuffed him, told him he was being “detained,” and took him to the crash scene, where after about 30 minutes they secured other evidence that Stilwell had driven his truck; they thus arrested him.