On Point: B. Opinions

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,

State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶20 n. 4:

… While Pickering could consent to a search of the vehicle, he could not consent to a search of his passenger. See State v. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 241 Wis.  2d 52,

State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison

Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles:

¶22      We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution, 

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the person whose documents were produced by a bank pursuant to subpoena has standing to seek suppression of the documents.

Holding:

¶24 A person has standing to seek judicial intervention when that person has “a personal stake in the outcome” 

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶30 The State concedes, and properly so, that contrary to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 no showing of probable cause was made to the circuit court before the circuit court issued the subpoenas.

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object.  State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶39      Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic alcoholic” who did not acknowledge his problem,

State v. Sou W. Her, 2008 WI 39, dismissing as improvidently granted, review of unpublished decision
For Her: Donald J. Chewning

Issue/Holding:

¶2        This case involves Her’s agreement to plead guilty in exchange for an aggregate 15-year sentence recommendation from the State (10-years initial confinement with 5-years extended supervision). The record clearly indicates that the district attorney intended Her’s 15-year sentence to match what was believed to be the sentence of Her’s co-defendant,