On Point blog, page 18 of 790
Defense Win! COA reverses recommitment order
Marathon County v. N.R.P., 2023AP638, 6/11/24, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another Chapter 51 reversal, COA finds fault with both the circuit court’s decision to admit and rely on hearsay evidence and its failure to make the required findings.
Speeding motorist’s attempt to undo conviction in COA fails under governing standard of review
Winnebago County v. Thomas J. Roberts, 2023AP1808, District II, 6/12/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of a conviction for speeding, COA easily dispatches Roberts’s arguments given the deferential standard of review for findings of fact.
Seventh Circuit cases for May
May was quiet; aside from the seismic win in Pope, there were only a few cases of potential interest to our readers:
DOJ’s decision to deny application for firearm affirmed where applicant’s misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was expunged.
Van Oudenhoven v. Wis. Dept. of Justice, 2023AP70-FT, 6/4/24, District III (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 11/12/24; dismissed as improvidently granted 6/24/25 case activity
Court of Appeals affirms circuit court’s order affirming DOJ’s decision to deny applicant’s request to purchase firearm after applicant’s conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence was expunged.
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.
Defense Win! Evidence was insufficient to support ch. 55 protective placement order
Outagamie County DHHS v. L.C.E., 2023AP929, District 3, 6/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that “Lauren” was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).
COA finds intoxicated driver was not subjected to “constructive arrest” and affirms denial of motion to suppress
City of Hartford v. Edward H. White, 2023AP1813 & 2023AP1814, 6/5/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
Although White tries to argue that he was under an unconstitutional constructive arrest when initially seized for suspicion of an OWI offense, COA finds his arguments unavailing and affirms.
Defense Win! Defendant entitled to hearing to determine eligibility for SAP/CIP
State v. Les Paul Henderson, 2023AP2079-CR, 5/31/24, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Henderson fails to persuade COA that a JOC making him eligible for early release programming controls, he does live to fight another day given COA’s order that he receive a hearing at which time the circuit court will have to exercise its discretion to determine his eligibility.
Mother’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge rejected because circuit court entered a TPR dispo order “a reasonable judge could reach”
State v. E.S., 2024AP395 & 396, 5/21/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
E.S. (“Emily”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the circuit court’s finding that her children did not have a substantial relationship with her and that they were too young to express their wishes. The court of appeals affirms after reviewing the record and concluding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering the statutorily required disposition factors and reaching a decision that a reasonable judge could reach Op., ¶26.
Defense Win! Driving on road “closed to through traffic” insufficient to justify traffic stop
Town of Dunn v. Brian S. LaFleur, 2023AP1529-1531, 5/23/24, District IV (1-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity
LaFleur was stopped after driving on a road that was marked “closed to through traffic” because his vehicle was registered to an address outside of the area. After the circuit court granted LaFleur’s motion to suppress, the Town appealed. The court of appeals affirms and agrees with the circuit court that the Town’s position would “impose too great of a burden on the Fourth Amendment rights” of non-local drivers using a road closed to through traffic for lawful purposes. Op., ¶16.