Explore in-depth analysis

On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

COA affirms extending involuntary commitment based on history of not taking medication and suicidal ideation.

Walworth County v. D.J.F., 2025AP2522, 5/6/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order extending D.J.F.’s involuntary commitment because there was a substantial likelihood he would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn given his history of not taking medication for schizoaffective disorder unless court ordered.

Read full article >

COA finds motorist not in Miranda custody during traffic stop

State of Wisconsin v. Kara S. Kluck2023AP952-CR, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite the presence of multiple officers, COA finds the test for custody is not satisfied by this interaction and affirms.

Read full article >

COA finds evidence supports TPR dispositional order and affirms

Marquette Department of Human Services v. B.L.J.2026AP400-402, 5/7/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another decision applying the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA rejects the appellant’s arguments which ignore that standard of review.

Read full article >

Catching up on COA’s publication orders

Without further ado, here are COA’s publication orders for the last several months:

Read full article >

Seventh Circuit cases for February, March and April

The last several months brought some interesting cases, including several non-Wisconsin habeas appeals, a Wisconsin-originating challenge to a law criminalizing the possession of a firearm by a felon, the distinction between “l” and “d” meth, a few Fourth Amendment issues and some Wisconsin-originating § 1983 claims that might be interesting to at least some of our readers.

Read full article >

COA rejects challenges to TPR dispositional order

Brown County Health &Human Services v. J.L., 2026AP176, 5/1/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

“Julie” challenges the circuit court’s exercise of discretion at disposition as to two factors of consideration. However, the deferential standard of review applicable to dispositional decisions results in affirmance.

Read full article >

COA: Community caretaking function does not justify seizing a witness to a traffic accident.

State v. William A. Anderson, 2025AP796, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because law enforcement’s community caretaker function did not justify seizing a possible witness to a motorcycle accident.

Read full article >

COA affirms commitment order under third standard and finds Ch. 55 exception does not apply

Washington County v. J.E.C.2025AP2798, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA relies on the respondent’s frequent absconding from her group home to find dangerousness and also holds that the existing Ch. 55 order is insufficient to meet J.E.C.’s needs.

Read full article >

COA concludes consent to blood draw was free and voluntary despite defendant’s aversion to needles.

Winnebago County v. Michael Jon Potratz, 2025AP1059, 4/29/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of his blood draw based on the factors established by SCOW in Artic .

Read full article >

COA holds officers had reasonable suspicion to justify Act 79 search of vehicle

State v. Shawn Clarke Spottswood, 2023AP1763-CR, 4/28/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Spottswood appeals the circuit court’s denial of his suppression motion after having entered a plea to receiving or concealing stolen property. On appeal, he again challenges the warrantless search of his vehicle, contending that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit an offense sufficient to justify the search under 2013 Wis. Act 79 and WIS. STAT. § 973.09(1d).

Read full article >

On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].

On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.