On Point: Uncategorized

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.”

State v. Juan M. Navarro, 2001 WI App 225
For Navarro: Joseph M. Moore, SPD Trial, Juneau

Issue: Whether the trial court is required to conduct an in camera inspection of confidential records of the complaining witness, a correctional officer, relating to his possible abusive treatment of inmates, in a battery-by-prisoner trial where the defendant alleges self-defense.

Holding: The trial court’s denial of in camera inspection without first conducting an evidentiary hearing on materiality was erroneous: Access may not be denied simply because the records aren’t within the state’s possession;

State v. Lance R. Ward, 2000 WI 3, 231 Wis.2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517, reversing State v. Ward, 222 Wis. 2d 311, 588 N.W.2d 645.For Ward: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police relied on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.

Holding: Police action in good faith reliance on supreme court pronouncements insulate that conduct from the exclusionary rule.

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001).
For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue: Whether Hughes voluntarily consented to a search of her person.

Holding: By verbally consenting and affirmatively assisting the police by lifting her skirt, Hughes did more than merely acquiesce to the search.

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an equivocal declaration of impartiality by a prospective juror is enough to establish subjective bias, given a trial court’s finding to the contrary.

Holding: The issue of a prospective juror’s subjective bias is reviewed on appeal through “a very deferential lens”;

State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the 980 subject suffered from a qualifying mental disorder, given that the experts split on the issue.

Holding:

¶15 Pletz argues that the two psychologists who testified on his behalf offered more credible testimony,