On Point blog, page 35 of 104
Extended Supervision Conditions – Suspicionless Searches; Battery to Law Officer, § 940.20(2) – Elements: Acting in Official Capacity
Wisconsin State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2012 WI 60, on certification review ; case activity
Extended Supervision Conditions – Suspicionless Searches
A condition of extended supervision “that allows any law enforcement officer to search [Tally]’s person, vehicle, or residence for firearms, at any time and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion,” was tailored to the particular facts and thus neither overbroad nor unrelated to Tally’s rehabilitative needs.
Search Warrants: Court Commissioner Authority to Issue
State v. Douglas Meier Williams, 2012 WI 59, on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams: Stephen P. Hurley, Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn, Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity
Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b), giving circuit court commissioners authority to issue search warrants, is constitutional.
¶3 Throughout Wisconsin’s history, including before the ratification of the Wisconsin Constitution, non-judges have been authorized by statute to issue search warrants.
Juvenile Delinquency – Waiver Investigation: Ex Parte Prosecutorial Participation
State v. Tyler T., 2012 WI 52, affirming unpublished decision; for Tyler T.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
While the practice of allowing ex parte prosecutorial input at the final staffing of a juvenile waiver investigation can’t be recommended, it is nonetheless not impermissible as a matter of law.
¶4 We conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Tyler’s request to strike the waiver investigation report prepared by the DHHS.
Defense win! Alzheimer’s diagnosis means person is not a “proper subject for treatment” under Chapter 51
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2012 WI 50, affirming 2011 WI App 72; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Someone suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease is not a fit subject for commitment under ch. 51 but, instead, guardianship proceedings under ch. 55.
¶13 Wis. Stat. ch. 55 provides Helen with the best means of care.
Appellate Review – “Waiver” and “Forfeiture,” Generally
Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2012 WI 44; case activity
¶37 n. [11]:
In State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, this court recognized that the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver” are often used interchangeably, but that the terms embody distinct legal concepts. Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
Judicial Disqualification – Material Witness
Memorandum Decision on Recusal in: Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr., 2012 WI 43 (Justice Roggensack); case activity
¶1 On April 17, 2012, Justice David T. Prosser’s Attorney, Kevin P. Reak, wrote and asked me to disqualify myself from participation in the above-captioned matter, asserting that I am a material witness. …
¶2 … I conclude that I am disqualified by law from participating in the above-captioned proceeding.
Payton v. New York Violation (Unlawful Entry of Residence, but with Probable Cause) and New York v. Harris Attenuation Doctrine
State v. Devin W. Felix, 2012 WI 36, reversing unpublished decision; for Felix: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
Under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), warrantless arrest following nonconsensual entry of a home is illegal unless supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. However, New York v. Harris,
Statutory Construction – “Shall” vs. “May”
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Company, 2012 WI 26; case activity
¶32 … The word “may” is ordinarily used to grant permission or to indicate possibility. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1112 (3d ed. 1992). Accordingly, when interpreting a statute, we generally construe the word “may” as permissive. Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 78 Wis. 2d 214, 220, 254 N.W.2d 230 (1977);
Appellate Jurisdiction – Final Order
Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity
¶3 If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …
…
¶26 We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.
Sex Offender Registration § 301.45 – Homeless Registrant
State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2012 WI 24, affirming 2010 WI App 163; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; note: the court affirms the mandate (reversal of conviction and dismissal of charge), but “upon a different rationale,” ¶63; the net effect is, “affirmed, as modified“
Although homelessness is not in and of itself a defense to prosecution for failing to register as a sex offender,