On Point blog, page 63 of 104
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Generally: Limited to Relevant Evidence
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause right to present a defense requires that a defendant be allowed to introduce relevant evidence, subject to reasonable restrictions. …
¶34 The right to present a defense does not require that a defendant be allowed to present irrelevant evidence.
Separation of Powers – Prosecutorial Veto and § 973.195, TIS Sentence Adjustment
State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass
For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The prosecutorial veto written into the TIS sentence-adjustment provision, § 973.195, is unconstitutional:
¶83 … “[S]hall” is interpreted as directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a petition for sentence adjustment under Wis.
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Problem Area,” “Lingering” in Car
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The police had reasonable suspicion to stop Young because: he was in a parked car with Illinois plates, which had “lingered” for 5 or 10 minutes around midnight around the corner from a bar, in a “problem area”:
¶64 Although there are innocent explanations for why five people would be sitting in a car for five to 10 minutes,
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Evasion and Flight”
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:
¶73 Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”
Obstructing / Resisting, § 946.41 – “Lawful Authority,” Established by Probable Cause to Arrest
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: By fleeing from a police command to stop, the defendant provided probable cause to arrest for obstructing, and the officer therefore was acting with “lawful authority” under § 946.41(1), ¶¶77-78.
Also see U.S. v. Muhammad,
Obstructing / Resisting, § 946.41 – “Lawful Authority,” Suspect’s “Evasion and Flight”
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:
¶73 Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”
Arrest – Probable Cause – Specific Examples: Obstructing
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: By fleeing from a police command to stop, the defendant provided probable cause to arrest for obstructing, and the officer therefore was acting with “lawful authority” under § 946.41(1), ¶¶77-78.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private / Government Search: Administration of Laxative to Arrestee at Hospital
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether the administration to an arrestee of a laxative at a hospital was under 4th amendment constraints because of the involvement of the police (including keeping the defendant handcuffed in the hospital room; police administration of the laxative; their palpable goal to recover a controlled substance that the defendant had swallowed).
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule: Private / Government Search, Generally
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶17 … Private searches are not subject to the Fourth Amendment’s protections because the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action. State v. Rogers, 148 Wis. 2d 243, 246, 435 N.W.2d 275 (Ct. App. 1988) ….¶18 The court of appeals in Rogers stated three requirements that must be met for a search to be a private search:
(1) the police may not initiate,
(State) Habeas Procedure — Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel — Laches Bar
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶28 Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim would be brought) and effect (prejudice).