On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Raenold Quiles, 2012AP1282, District 2, 10/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Given the trial court’s finding of fact that Quiles was merely “wandering over to and touching the fog line for a bit,” with otherwise “smooth, normal driving,” the traffic stop for crossing the fog line wasn’t supported.

¶9        Here, the evidence conflicted as to how many times Quiles crossed the fog line.  

Grant Co. DSS v. Elizabeth M. R., 2012AP1059, District 4, 8/9/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

By failing to consider whether the child had a substantial relationship with the parent, § 48.426(3), the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in concluding that termination of parental rights was in the child’s bests interests.

¶16      In Margaret H.,

State v. Jaredt E. Simonis, 2012 WI App 84 (recommended for publication); case activity

Although Simonis was properly ordered pursuant to § 973.047 provide a DNA sample, the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion in ordering him under § 973.046 to pay the associated costs.

¶1        The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in ordering Jaredt Simonis to pay the DNA analysis surcharge pursuant to Wis.

Marquette County v. Carl G. Culver, 2011AP1523, District 4, 6/21/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The police had probable cause to arrest Culver, the driver in a one-car accident, given the smell of intoxicants on his breath and his “inconsistent answers” to questions about the accident:

¶13      We conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that the facts known to Sergeant McCoy at the time he placed Culver under arrest,

State v. Jason T. Moynihan, 2011AP2858-CR, District 2, 5/30/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Moynihan: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶8        In this case, the deputy pulled over the vehicle driven by Moynihan because he believed it was being driven by Saeger and believed that Saeger’s driver’s license was revoked.  The question is whether the deputy’s belief, or suspicion, was reasonable.  

State v. Mary Alice Gentry, 2012AP59-CR, District 4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gentry: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶6        A traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶24, 274 Wis.

Dane Co. DHS v. Angela M. K., 2012AP579, District 4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Angela M.K.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Angela’s challenge to her termination-of-rights plea to grounds. She argued she didn’t fully understand the CHIPS element, namely  that “there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not meet [conditions for children’s return] within the 9-month period following the fact-finding hearing,” § 48.415(2)(a)3.

State v. Michael E. Mings, 2011AP2467-CR, District 2, 3/28/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Mings: Daniel P. Fay, Erin Fay; case activity

¶12      Hallmark testified that he has completed many traffic stops in his three years as a police officer and that “most innocent public, motoring traffic, don’t usually pass … at that slow of speeds, especially when the lane is that wide and clear of traffic.”  Hallmark explained that the vehicle conducting the initial traffic stop had pulled into a driveway and that Hallmark’s vehicle was in the parking lane on Tenny Avenue. 

State v. Daniel M. Buesgens, No. 2011AP2241-CR, District 3, 3/27/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Buesgens: Eric John Nelson; case activity

Buesgens, told he was “absolutely free to go” after a concededly proper traffic stop, wasn’t then “reseized” when the officer asked questions related to whether he had been drinking.

¶15      Similar to Williams, a reasonable person in Buesgens’ position would have felt free to decline Mork’s questions and terminate the encounter.  

State v. Elizabeth C. Emmenegger, 2011AP1214-CR, District 4, 3/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emmenegger: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Sufficient cause for traffic stop upheld, citing State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634.

¶17      While any one of these facts, standing alone, might be insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion,