On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Michael R. Hess, 2010 WI 82  affirming 2009 WI App 105; for Hess: George M. Tauscheck; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant

¶2   We conclude that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a situation in which: (1) no facts existed that would justify an arrest without a warrant;

State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶4   We conclude, following Wis. Stat. § 974.06, that a defendant is not required to file a response to a no-merit report. This means he is not required to raise issues in response to a no-merit report.

State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge the taint of the illegal entry.

State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶2   The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the officers corroborated three of the four details relayed by an anonymous informant,

State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that “two individuals …

State v. Patrick C. Carter, 2010 WI 77, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 255; for Carter: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Carter is entitled to sentence credit for time spent in custody in Illinois following his arrest on an outstanding Wisconsin warrant along with an Illinois charge, given that the resultant sentences were concurrent.

Five different opinions, 238 paragraphs spread out over 116 pages (pdf file),

Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78

¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.

A less obscure problem than you might think.

State v. Landray M. Harris, 2010 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Harris: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply; Amicus

¶3 We agree with the State and reject the reasonable observer test created by the court of appeals. Sentencing decisions are afforded a presumption of reasonability consistent with Wisconsin’s strong public policy against interference with a circuit court’s discretion.

decision below (unpublished); for Marinez: Ralph Sczygelski

Issues (as provided by the court):

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion by admitting other acts evidence of the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?

Did the court of appeals err by applying the de novo standard of review to the circuit court’s decision admitting the minor child’s videotaped statement without excerption of the hand-burning references?

Estate of Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WI 71

The supreme court is empowered to review denial of a petition for leave to appeal non-final order by the court of appeals.

¶45 The language of our case law is strong. We have stated that “[w]here the court of appeals denies permission to appeal from an order conceded by the parties to be nonfinal,