On Point: 2009-10 Term

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances did not support browsing through image gallery of lawfully seized cell phone:  “That data was not in immediate danger of disappearing before Belsha could obtain a warrant,” ¶33.

The court of appeals had merely assumed that such browsing was improper on the facts,

State v. Daniel Arends, 2010 WI 46, affirming as modified, 2008 WI App 184; for Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Procedure clarified for handling discharge petitions under recently amended § 908.09 :

¶3   We conclude that § 980.09 requires the circuit court to follow a two-step process in determining whether to hold a discharge hearing.

¶4   Under § 980.09(1),

Wisconsin supreme court order

The underlying question is whether Justice Roggensack “previously handled” Henley’s earlier appeal when she was a court of appeals judge; if so, then by statute she must be disqualified from participating in his now-pending appeal. She declined to disqualify herself in a memorandum decision, 2010 WI 12. Further background, here. And here, especially with respect to State v.

OLR v. Joan M. Boyd, 2010 WI 41

Various derelictions warrant 12-month license suspension, consecutive to already-imposed suspensions. The Counts include various failures to act competently and to keep her client reasonably informed in a number of postconviction actions. In one instance, lack of diligence led to loss of the federal habeas statute of limitations, ¶8; and in another, to a lost state appellate deadline, ¶11. Another count, of potential interest,

State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, reversing 2009 WI App 26, prior history omitted; for Jensen: Robert H. Friebert; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶1   … The issue presented is whether Waukesha County Circuit Court is the proper venue for Jensen’s trial because it is the “circuit court for the county where the defendant resides”

State v. James W. Smith, 2010 WI 16, affirming 2009 WI App 16; for Smith: Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

The § 301.45 reporting requirement applicable to any violation of false imprisonment of a minor not the defendant’s child is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in protecting the public, particularly children, ¶¶27-36.

Keep in mind that Smith challenged the statute as applied to him.

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Frisk analysis applies to police demand that suspect drop object in hand, ¶22.

¶23      Here, Carroll led officers on a high-speed chase in a car that the officers had been observing in connection with an armed robbery investigation, and exited his car quickly while holding an unknown object. 

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Displayed image on cell phone satisfied plain view doctrine (lawful position of officer, inadvertent discovery, probable cause to be images displayed contraband), ¶¶23-25.

State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2008 WI App 161, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 8
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:  Continued possession of Carroll’s cell phone justified, though Carroll not in custody. Expectation of privacy in cell phone analogous to that attending “closed container” such as luggage, as to which detention of container must be supported by probable cause to believe it contains evidence of crime and by exigent circumstances,