On Point blog, page 1 of 12
COA rejects probable cause, Franks-Mann and spoliation challenges, affirms PAC & refusal judgments
Portage County v. Carter Townsend Andreae, 2024AP1330 & 1331, 9/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects Andreae’s challenges to the circuit court’s denial of his three pretrial motions and affirms the refusal and PAC 1st.
SCOW to review constitutional requirements for warrant to search smartphone
State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 8/21/26; case activity
SCOW has granted the state’s petition to review a published COA decision (see our post here), which held, as a matter of first impression, that a “warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the smartphone, and its authorization must be limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established through the facts and circumstances set forth under oath in the warrant’s supporting affidavit.” (Cleaned up).
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 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.
Eastern District holds that investigators violated 4th Amendment when they viewed suspected child pornography identified via “hash matching;” holds that good faith does not apply
United States of America v. Peter Braun, 24-CR-164 (E.D. Wis. 9/3/25).
In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Court holds that law enforcement violated Braun’s rights when it viewed suspected child pornography without a search warrant when that child pornography had not been previously viewed by an employee of an ESP.
Using umbrella for a snow shovel arouses suspicion of intoxication; COA affirms conviction for operating with prohibited alcohol concentration and refusing PBT.
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.
COA affirms denial of suppression in OWI, concludes police had probable cause to arrest
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.
COA: Driver does not have right under implied consent statute to refuse blood test when driver proposes to take breath or urine test.
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.
Police properly requested PBT; had probable cause to arrest intoxicated motorist
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.
COA rejects novel discovery claim and other challenges to child pornography conviction
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.