On Point blog, page 42 of 104
TPR – Dispositional Orders, § 48.355(2)(b)1
Sheboygan Co. DHHS v. Tanya M.B. / William S.L., 2010 WI 55, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; for Tanya M.B.: Paul G. Bonneson; for William L.: Thomas K. Voss
CHIPS order entered under § 48.355(2)(b)1 “shall contain … specific services to be provided”; subsequent TPR based on lack of compliance with CHIPS conditions requires that the responsible agency made a reasonable effort to provide the ordered services.
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Minor Traffic Stop – Passenger (Various Factors, Including Nervousness, High-Crime Area)
State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The following factors did not add up to reasonable suspicion supporting the frisk of a passenger during a routine traffic stop (¶17):
(1) The officer testified that he “didn’t feel any particular threat before searching” the defendant.
(2) The defendant,
Exigency – Answering Incoming Call, Lawfully Seized Cell Phone Image Supported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Answering call on lawfully seized cell phone proper, given existence of “probable cause to believe that the cell phone was a tool used in drug trafficking,” plus exigent circumstances (danger of evidence destruction), ¶¶35-42.
Probable cause, of course, is typically fact-specific and in that sense the court’s discussion (¶¶25-29) is mundane.
Exigency – Browsing through Image Gallery of Lawfully Cell Phone Unsupported
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,
SVP, Ch. 980 – Discharge Procedure
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),
Order on Judicial Disqualification in: State v. Dimitri Henley, 2008AP697, 5/24/10
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.
Counsel – Ethically Deficient Performance
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,
Misconduct in Public Office, § 946.12(3) – Venue, § 971.19(12)
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”
Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration, § 301.45
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.
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – Demand that Suspect Drop Object
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.