On Point: B. Opinions

State v. Patrick K. Tourville, 2016 WI 17, 3/15/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Patrick Tourville pled to four crimes in a deal that called on the state to recommend a sentence no higher than the one recommended by the PSI. The PSI recommended a prison term for each count; the state recommended that these terms be run consecutively. So when the state asked for consecutive time even though the PSI didn’t, did it honor its commitment to follow the PSI? If you answered “no,” the one thing we know about you is that you’re not a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

State v. Andy J. Parisi, 2016 WI 10, 2/24/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Police found Andy Parisi unconscious and having trouble breathing. Almost two and a half hours later, at a hospital, an officer had his blood drawn to test for heroin. The state supreme court now holds that the circumstances of this case–which seem to boil down to the fact that heroin naturally dissipates within the bloodstream–were “exigent,” justifying the warrantless search.

State v. Charles V. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 2/10/16, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This is a painful loss for the defense. Matalonis won suppression at the court of appeals. The State filed a petition for review, which, of course, was granted. SCOW held oral argument and took a tentative vote before Justice Crooks died. After his death, the vote changed to 3-3. So you’d expect this case to end in a tie, which would affirm the court of appeals’ decision. But that did not happen.  Instead, though she has not participated in any other case argued and decided before she joined SCOW,  Justice R. Bradley emerged to cast the decisive vote against the defendant here. Even worse, Justice Prosser says the majority opinion extends the community caretaker exception just enough to swallow the 4th Amendment. Ouch.

State v. Melisa Valadez, 2016 WI 4, 1/28/2016, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

What looked like a case about the meaning of “likely to result in … deportation” has turned into something else entirely: in a fractured decision, the court holds that the defendant has successfully shown she is likely to be excluded from admission to the country and raises, but does not resolve, the possibility that plea withdrawal claims for failure to give the required immigration warning must be brought within the time limits of Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30 (or perhaps within the strictures of Wis. Stat. § 974.06).

State v. Brett W. Dumstrey, 2016 WI 3, 1/15/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Residents of multi-family dwellings, beware! According to the dissent, this decision “creates a great inequity” between those who live in houses and those who don’t (e.g. SPD clients). The majority holds that a locked, parking garage beneath an apartment building is not curtilage protected by the 4th Amendment, and an apartment dweller has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the private parking space for which he pays rent. Attorney Anthony Cotton, counsel for Dumstrey, offers his thoughts on the decision.

Winnebago County v. Christopher S., 2016 WI 1, on certification from the court of appeals, and affirming the circuit court’s orders for commitment and involuntary medication; majority opinion by Justice Gableman, concurrence/dissent by Justice Abrahamson; case activity

The provisions of ch. 51 allowing the involuntary mental health commitment of prison inmates without a finding of dangerousness does not violate substantive due process because the statute’s provisions are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest.

New Richmond News v. City of New Richmond, 2015 WI 106, 12/18/15 (per curiam); case activity (including briefs)

We take note of this decision not because of the issue presented (does the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act restrict access to records that would otherwise be subject to inspection under Wisconsin’s open records law?) but because of what it may portend for a handful of criminal cases briefed and argued in—but not decided by—the Wisconsin Supreme Court before the death of Justice N. Patrick Crooks in September 2015.

State v. Daniel S. Iverson, 2015 WI 101, 11/25/2015, reversing a 1-judge court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Do cigarette butts decompose? Do they “result[]…from community activities”? Those are just two of the burning questions left unanswered (smoldering?) after this blaze of statutory construction.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson et al.; State of Wisconsin ex rel. Francis D. Schmitz v. the Honorable Gregory Peterson, & State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. The Honorable Gregory Peterson, et al., 2015 WI 85, issued 7/16/15; case activity: Two Unnamed Petitioners; Schmitz v. Peterson; Three Unnamed Petitioners

Unless you’ve just returned from a trip to a remote corner of the globe that’s beyond the reach of news media, you know by now that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided the so-called “John Doe” cases. The court’s decision ordered a halt into the investigation of coordinated fundraising and spending between candidate committees and certain independent groups during the 2011-12 recall campaigns. Gargantuan by any standard, the decision goes on for almost 400 pages, with a majority opinion, two concurrences (Prosser and Ziegler), and two dissents/concurrences (Abrahamson and Crooks). It contains almost nothing of relevance to ordinary criminal law practice. However, in the interest of helping orient readers who may want to look more closely at the decision, below the break is a summary of the major issues and how the various opinions address them.

State v. Jesse L. Herrmann, 2015 WI 84, 7/15/15, afffirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

All seven justices agree Herrmann’s due process right to an impartial judge wasn’t violated in this case, as the sentencing judge’s remarks didn’t establish the judge was was objectively biased against Herrmann. Two separate concurrences consisting of four justices, however, express displeasure with (or attempt to limit, at least with respect to recusal) the objective bias test as established in previous Wisconsin and U.S. Supreme Court cases.