On Point: Important Posts

Caniglia v. Strom, USSC No. 20-157, 2021 WL 1951784 , May 17, 2021; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

In four quick pages, a unanimous Supreme Court rejects the notion that the police have a “caretaking” duty that “creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.” This undoes a lot of law, in Wisconsin and elsewhere; at a minimum we can say that State v. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, 327 Wis. 2d 346, 785 N.W.2d 592 and State v. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 366 Wis. 2d 443, 875 N.W.2d 567, both of which permitted entries to residences on “community caretaker” grounds, are no longer valid. But the brevity of the decision leaves a lot of questions unanswered; and its unanimity (as the concurrences show) obscures real disagreement about just what the Court has decided.

We’ll have a full analysis of this one in the coming days, but for anybody currently litigating a community caretaker case, be advised the doctrine doesn’t exist. Writing for a unanimous Court (there are two concurrences totaling four justices, so the 5-justice majority is law) Justice Thomas says that the reference in Cady v. Dombrowski to the “community caretaking” function of police was descriptive only: it’s not a stand-alone warrant exception.

State v. Tavodess Matthews, 2021 WI 42, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2020 WI App 33, 5/14/21, case activity (including briefs)

Section 801.58(1) allows a party to a civil case to request a new judge if, among other things, he files a written substitution request before “the hearing of any preliminary contested matter.” Matthews’ case concerns a substitution request made after the circuit court granted a motion to adjourn a Chapter 980 probable cause hearing regarding sexually violent persons. But since Chapter 980 commitments are civil proceedings, this unanimous SCOW opinion, which reverses a published court of appeals’ opinion, is an important clarification of the law governing all civil cases.

State v. Mitchell L. Christen, 2019AP1767-CR,  affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; 5/4/21, case activity (including briefs)

Christen was armed while drunk in his apartment when he threatened to shoot his roommates.  A jury found that he violated §941.20(1)(b), which makes it a crime to operate or go armed with a firearm while intoxicated. Christen challenged the constitutionality of §941.20(1)(b) as applied to him because it burdened his 2nd Amendment right to armed self-defense under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In a 5-1-1 opinion, SCOW rejects this challenge. Hagedorn concurs. R.G. Bradley dissents arguing in part that the prevalence of guns and copious alcohol consumption in the colonies show that the Framers guaranteed Americans the right to be armed while drunk.

State v. Scott William Forrett, 2021 WI App 31, petition for review granted, 9/14/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 37; case activity (including briefs)

Wisconsin permits a driver’s prior refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test as a criminal penalty enhancer for a subsequent OWI. In an open and shut opinion that is recommended for publication, the court of appeals just declared that statutory scheme unconstitutional based on Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), and State v. Dalton, 2018 WI 85, 383 Wis. 2d 147, 914 N.W.2d 120.

State v. Teresa L. Clark, 2020AP1058-CR, bypass granted 4/27/21; case activity

Issue: (adapted from State’s COA brief):

When the State uses a prior OWI conviction to enhance the charge and sentence for a subsequent OWI offense, a defendant may collaterally attack the prior conviction. If the defendant proves that her right to counsel was violated in the prior case, the conviction may not be used to enhance the charge and sentence in the new case. Does the burden shift to the State when there is no transcript available to show that the circuit court violated the defendant’s right to counsel?

On April 28, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Patrick A. Keller, 2021 WI App 22 (Confrontation Clause doesn’t apply to statements of mandatory child abuse reporter)

State v. Markell Hogan, 2021 WI App 24 (cop can testify as human trafficking expert)

State v. C.G., 2018AP2205, review granted 4/27/21; case activity

Issues presented:

Does Wis. Stat. § 301.45, the statute governing juvenile sex offender registration, unconstitutionally infringe on Ella’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech by preventing her from legally changing her name to reflect her gender identity?

Does requiring Ella to register under Wis. Stat. § 301.45 amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?

State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2019AP1317, review granted 4/27/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented:

After Daniel Van Linn was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, a sheriff’s deputy ordered his blood drawn for testing. This draw was illegal, and the circuit court excluded its fruit. After the suppression decision, the prosecutor applied for a subpoena to the hospital where Mr. Van Linn had been treated; the application included the results of the first, suppressed blood test. The court issued the subpoena and the hospital turned over evidence including the results of the blood alcohol test it had conducted. Was the state’s decision to seek this subpoena the fruit of its earlier, unlawful search, such that its results should have been suppressed?

Jones v. Mississippi, USSC No. 18-1259, 2021 WL 1566605, April 22, 2021; Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

“In a case involving [sentencing] an individual who was under 18 when he or she committed a homicide [to life without parole], a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” (Slip op. at 5) (emphasis added).