On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. David W. Oakley, 2000 WI 37, 234 Wis. 2d 528, 609 N.W.2d 786, reversing State v. Oakley, 226 Wis. 2d 437, 594 N.W.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may require payment of an old, unpaid fine that was imposed in a prior sentence as a condition of probation for a new conviction when violation of the condition of probation exposes the defendant to incarceration in county jail for more than six months.”

State v. William J. Church, 2000 WI 90, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638, dismissing review as improvidently granted, thereby affirming State v. Church , 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the child enticement statute, § 948.07, supports multiple charges and punishments based on a single act.

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      …. The legislature has the authority to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer rather than an element of the offense. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 246. Although the legislature is permitted to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer,

State v. Jose C. McGill, 2000 WI 38, 234 Wis. 2d 560, 609 N.W.2d 795, affirming unpublished decision
For McGill: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe McGill armed and dangerous, and therefore to frisk him, following a routine traffic stop.

Holding: Judged by the requisite objective test, the frisk was justified, given that: the driver didn’t stop immediately;

State v. Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz, 2000 WI 4, 231 Wis.2d 782, 604 N.W.2d 543, reversing unpublished decision
For Orta: Mark F. Nielsen, Schwartz, Tifte & Nielsen
For Ruiz: Michael P. Reisterer, Jr.
For amici (SPD & WACDL): Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate, & Howard B. Eisenberg

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

State v. Terry Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Griffith: Paul G. LaZotte

Issue: Whether the police lacked authority to ask the name and birth date of a passenger of a lawfully stopped car.

Holding: The police may request identifying information from passengers during traffic stops, ¶45, and though the passenger may rightfully decline to answer,

State v. Melvin L. Moffett and Jerrell I. Denson, 2000 WI 130, 239 Wis. 2d 629, 619 N.W.2d 918, affirming State v. Moffett/Denson, 2000 WI App 67, 233 Wis. 2d 628, 608 N.W.2d 733
For Moffett: Patrick J. Stangl; for Denson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue:

¶2 The parties present the following question to this court: May the State charge the defendants with two crimes,

State v. Thomas G. Martwick, 2000 WI 5, 231 Wis.2d 801, 604 N.W.2d 552, reversing unpublished decision
For Martwick: Robert P. Rusch

Issue: Whether plants found on Martwick’s property were within his curtilage, and therefore subject to the warrant requirement, or in “open fields.”

Holding: The plants were in open fields, outside the curtilage, and therefore could be seized without a warrant.

The sheriff thought Martwick was growing marijuana on his property,

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.

Issue1: Whether “the combination of the strong odor of marijuana coming from the apartment, and the knowledge on the part of the occupants that the police are standing outside, amount to exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry and subsequent search”.

State v. Lane R. Weidner, 2000 WI 52, 235 Wis. 2d 306, 611 N.W.2d 684, on certification
For Weidner: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional.

Holding:

¶43  In sum, we determine that Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional in the context of the internet and other situations that do not involve face-to-face contact.  Because the statute does not require the State to prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age when disseminating materials deemed harmful to children,