On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215
For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to restitution until postconviction motion would not incur waiver bar for several reasons: particular claim is of statewide interest; the state never argued waiver in the trial court; the issue is one purely of law. ¶¶11-13.

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grds., 2002 WI 77, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341
For Leitner: Jim Scott

Issue: Whether the defendant waived his right to object to trial court reliance on certain information by failing to lodge a contemporaneous objection.

Holding:

¶41 … When the prosecutor subsequently argued that the trial court should not consider the convictions,

State v. Deryl B. Beyer, 2001 WI App 167, PFR filed
For Beyer: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the trial court lost competence because the 72-hour time limit for a probable cause hearing, imposed by § 980.04(2), had passed.

Holding: Although the statutory time limit uses the term “shall,” it is directory rather than mandatory. “¶11. Under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2), the State has only one ninety-day window of opportunity to petition for commitment.

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to frisk Kelsey, a juvenile, before placing her in a squad car and transporting her home at her mother’s request.

Holding: The most significant feature of this fractured ruling is majority support for the principle that there is no “blanket-rule that a police officer may frisk a person just because the officer is going to place that person inside a police vehicle.”

State v. Murle E. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, reversing 2000 WI App 137, 237 Wis. 2d 313, 614 N.W.2d 25
For Perkins: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether and to what extent threats are protected from prosecution under the first amendment.

Holding:

¶17 This court agrees with the State and the defendant that some threatening words are protected speech under the First Amendment.

State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa

Issue:Whether entry into a closet, after defendant was arrested in his residence, was justified under the “protective sweep” doctrine.

Holding: Under Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), the police may conduct a “protective sweep” of premises, incident arrest, of spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest,

State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01
For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg

Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test.

Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established by State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), 

State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126
For defendants: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether an apartment owner’s consent to search his apartment, given in response to police threat to obtain a search warrant even though no probable cause existed, was involuntary.

Holding::

¶54 The police may not threaten to obtain a search warrant when there are no grounds for a valid warrant. 

State v. Bill Paul Marquardt , 2001 WI App 219, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Marquardt: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the automobile exception allowed the warrantless search of defendant’s car.

Holding: A warrantless search of a vehicle requires two showings: probable cause; and “ready” mobility of vehicle. ¶¶31-32. Because the defendant did not contest probable cause until his reply brief, that issue is taken as conceded.

State v. Paul J. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275
For VanLaarhoven: Michele Anne Tjader

Issue: Whether a blood sample, properly obtained under the Implied Consent law, may be analyzed without a warrant.

Holding: The Implied Consent law requires that all who apply for a driver’s license consent not only to provide a sample, but also a chemical analysis of the sample. ¶¶7-8. More broadly: “the examination of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant requirement or an exception to the warrant requirement is an essential part of the seizure and does not require a judicially authorized warrant.”