On Point blog, page 68 of 133
Search Warrant – GPS Tracking Device
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, affirming 2009 WI App 81; for Sveum: Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Amicus (ACLU); Resp. to Amicus
A circuit court “order” authorizing law enforcement to place and monitor a GPS tracking device on Sveum’s vehicle satisfied 4th amendment Warrant Clause (all warrants must be validly issued) and Reasonableness Clause (warrants must be reasonably executed) requirements.
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2); Comment on Truthfulness; Self-Incrimination – Waiver – Examination by Expert
State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally
¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.
Exclusionary Rule – Good-Faith Rule – Void ab initio Warrant
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;
Serial Litigation Bar and No-Merit Procedure
State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply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.
Warrantless Entry – Consent – Attenuation of Taint
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.
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
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,
Community Caretaker – Warrantless Entry
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 …
Sentence Credit – Concurrent Sentence, Foreign Jurisdiction
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),
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
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.
Sentencing – Review – Reliance on Race or Gender
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.