On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW holds criminal courts cannot order involuntary medication of a defendant committed for purposes of competency restoration on basis of dangerousness
State v. N.K.B., 2026 WI 22, 6/26/26, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity
SCOW holds that criminal courts cannot order involuntary medication of a defendant committed for purposes of competency restoration on the basis that he or she is dangerous.
SCOW refuses to reconsider its previous decisions on mootness, holds that admission of hearsay evidence was harmless
Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2026 WI 24, 6/30/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity
SCOW refuses an invitation to retreat from previous decisions making it difficult for a Chapter 51 appeal to be moot but ultimately holds that R.D.T. is not entitled to relief as a result of the allegedly improper admission of hearsay evidence.
SCOW holds that failing to meet deadline to provide access to examiner’s report 48 hours before a final Ch. 51 commitment hearing does not deny the circuit court competence to proceed.
Outagamie County v. M.J.B., 2026 WI 23, 6/26/26, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity
In a unanimous decision, SCOW held that the deadline to provide access to examiners’ 48 hours in advance of the final hearing is not central to Chapter 51’s statutory scheme, violating the deadline does not divest the circuit court of competency to proceed, and the circuit court must therefore review whether failing to comply with the deadline was harmless error.
SCOW holds that no colloquy is required when a person “stipulates” to an involuntary mental commitment order; flags numerous other unresolved issues
Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2026 WI 16, 5/19/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity
In a relatively concise majority opinion, SCOW addresses a narrow issue and holds that no colloquy is required when a person stipulates to an involuntary mental commitment order. However, the separate writings flag many other interesting and highly relevant issues for our readers.
SCOW issues powerful decision relevant to juveniles interrogated at school but denies relief under harmless error analysis
State v. K.R.C., 2026 WI 10, 3/26/26, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity
While SCOW denies relief to K.R.C., it issues a strongly worded decision that will help vindicate the constitutional rights of children interacting with school resource officers on campus.
SCOW reverses COA in 971.14 med order appeal, decides standard of review for Sell factors, limits Green’s applicability, and declines to resolve several issues
State v. J.D.B., 2026 WI , 2/25/26, reversing a published court of appeals opinion; case activity
SCOW reverses the COA, holding , clarifies the standard of review for each of the Sell factors, holds that Green is overruled to the extent that it “require[d] each and every piece of information it lists” and declines to decide several issues.
SCOW holds that ESP was not acting as government agent when it scanned files for CSAM
State v. Andreas W. Rauch-Sharak, 2026 WI 4, 2/24/26, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity
SCOW holds that Google’s search of Rauch-Sharak’s files was a private search, slightly clarifies that legal test, and affirms.
In eagerly-awaited decision, SCOW holds that police did not exceed scope of previously conducted “private search” of suspected CSAM
State v, Michael Joseph Gasper, 2026 WI 3, 1/14/26, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals (on other grounds); case activity
In a narrow decision, SCOW holds that law enforcement did not exceed the scope of a private search conducted on a file uploaded by Gasper to Snapchat account which allegedly contained CSAM and affirms.