On Point

Chong L. Lee v. Bradley Mlodzik, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 24-2647, 3/24/26

“The State of Wisconsin violated Chong Lee’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights while prosecuting him for murder[,]” as it failed to disclose that it had interviewed 3 eyewitnesses and intentionally destroyed recordings of those interviews to ensure he could not obtain them. Despite these Brady and Trombetta/Youngblood violations, the 7th Circuit affirms the remedy applied by the state trial court.

State v. K.R.C., 2026 WI 10, 3/26/26, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity

While SCOW denies relief to K.R.C., it issues a strongly worded decision that will help vindicate the constitutional rights of children interacting with school resource officers on campus.

State of Wisconsin v. Brandon L. Strickland, 2024AP2376-CR, 3/17/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA determined that law enforcement’s community caretaking function justified an officer to direct a person out of his vehicle after the officer found the person asleep at the wheel while the car was parked in his driveway.  And because the officer developed reasonable suspicion that the suspect used and possessed a controlled substance and was on probation, the officer lawfully searched the vehicle under Act 79.

Fond du Lac County v. S.R.H., 2025AP2727-FT, 3/18/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Seth” challenges the 2025 extension of his ch. 51 commitment, contending that Fond du Lac County failed to introduce clear and convincing evidence to support the conclusion that he is dangerous pursuant to either WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2.b. or 51.20(1)(am) and that the circuit court therefore erred in entering the extension order on those grounds. COA affirms.

State v. Conor Alexander Noble, 2025AP811-CR, 3/11/26, District II (1 judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects Noble’s facial unconstitutionality challenge to Wisconsin’s Implied Consent Law (ICL) and affirms the circuit court’s denial of Noble’s motion to suppress the blood draw results for lack of voluntary consent.

Sawyer County Health & Human Services v. D.K., 2025AP2832, 3/12/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the order terminating “Daniel’s” parental rights after summary judgment was granted at the grounds phase because genuine issues of material fact exist whether the County made reasonable efforts to provide services.

S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF & Waupaca County, 2024AP472, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals, granted 3/11/26

In a case that will impact an important procedural aspect of certain CHIPS cases, SCOW accepts review of Waupaca County’s petition seeking to reverse (something of) a defense win.

State v. Latres Christopher Robinson, 2025AP983-CR, 3/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision resolving an issue which has been percolating since SCOW’s decision in O’Brien over a decade ago, COA approves the practice of calling an investigator to read the criminal complaint into the record in order to satisfy the preliminary hearing requirement.

State of Wisconsin v. Jonathon L. Sundermeyer, 2024AP2007-CR, 3/3/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA concludes a defective plea colloquy was not sufficient to collaterally attack the defendant’s prior OWI conviction where the defendant did not establish he was unaware of the potential penalties for his prior conviction.  The COA also determined an officer’s affidavit in support of a blood draw complies with the constitutional requirement for an an affidavit to be supported by oath or affirmation where the officer was not present when the defendant was arrested for operating while intoxicated (OWI) but relied on information from an officer who was present.

Jefferson County DHS v. G.J.J., 2025AP2491, 3/5/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

While G.J.J. gets closer than most–and his arguments even give COA “pause”–ultimately, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.