On Point

Brown County v. K.B., 2024AP1843, District III, 9/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA agrees with “Kathy” that the county failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that she is in continuing need of protective placement, and reverses the ch. 55 order.

United States v. Jose Angel Hernandez-Pineda, 25-CR-64 (E.D. Wis. 8/25/25).

In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Eastern District holds that officers violated Hernandez-Peneda’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his apartment without a warrant and without his voluntary consent.

State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.

State v. Keith Kenyon, 2022AP2228-CR, 9/16/25, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

Although COA is surprisingly candid in acknowledging some of the injustices present in this appeal, the Court ultimately concludes that Kenyon’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by existing precedent.

United States of America v. Peter Braun, 24-CR-164 (E.D. Wis. 9/3/25).

In an interesting Fourth Amendment case, the Court holds that law enforcement violated Braun’s rights when it viewed suspected child pornography without a search warrant when that child pornography had not been previously viewed by an employee of an ESP.

V.K. v. D.J.F., 2024AP2028, 9/10/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA ducks a recurrent issue as to whether expert testimony is required to prove the grounds for a protective placement and otherwise affirms the circuit court’s order granting this privately-filed petition for protective placement.

State v. A.C.S, 2024AP1634, 9/10/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s dispositional order entered after a jury found “Anna’s” child was in need of protection or services (CHIPS) and ordered a new trial because the court excluded evidence that Anna executed a power of attorney to guarantee the child’s care while she was in custody.

Buckle up! August was a busy month for the 7th, with many interesting cases decided including a defense lawyer telling the jury he believed the child victim during closing arguments, a couple of habeas cases, a discussion on the difference between direct and other acts evidence, false arrest for suspected animal abuse, an interesting decision on counsel’s obligation to litigate unsettled law, and so much more!

Noem v. Perdomo, USSC No. 25A169, 9/8/2025, Scotusblog page

SCOTUS stayed a district court’s order enjoining immigration agents from conducting stops in the Los Angeles area unless the agent has reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is within the United States in violation of immigration law.

Sheboygan County DH & HS v. N.H. & E.H., 2025AP903-FT, 9/10/25, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” appeals from an order denying his request to change his placement back to his father’s home in a CHIPS case. COA affirms.