On Point

State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming the judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)

We said in our post on the court of appeals’ certification that this case presented novel and important issues about searches of cell phones and their data. So we anticipated a decision addressing the parameters of police searches of digital devices. But the majority doesn’t address those issues or decide whether Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Instead, the majority holds that, regardless of the lawfulness of the search of Burch’s cell phone data, “there was no police misconduct to trigger application of the exclusionary rule.” (¶26). The majority’s approach bodes ill for the future of Fourth Amendment litigation and the freedom the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect—as illustrated by this case, given that a majority of the justices (one concurring, three dissenting) concludes the search of Burch’s phone data violated the Fourth Amendment.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, 6/29/21, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming a judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the state to introduce evidence relating to Fitbit data without requiring expert testimony on the reliability of the device.

Rusk County v. A.A., 2019AP839 & 2020AP1580, District 3, 7/20/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (2019AP839; 2020AP1580)

A.A. appeals two recommitment orders, raising multiple constitutional issues as to both and challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of dangerousness as to one of the cases and the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the other. The court of appeals acknowledges that A.A.’s constitutional claims raise “important” and “thorny” issues about recommitment petition pleading requirements and the constitutionality of recommitment proceedings, but it it resolves both cases on the evidentiary issues. (¶¶15, 31-32).

State v. T.T., 2021AP739, 2021AP740, 2021AP741 & 2021AP742, District 1, 7/23/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.T. unsuccessfully challenges the findings at the grounds phase and the dispositional order terminating his parental rights to his four children.

C.W. v. M.M., 2021AP330 & 2021AP331, District 3, 7/21/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

M.M.’s consent to voluntary termination of parental rights was valid and can’t be withdrawn.

State v. Aaron Matthew Oleston, 2020AP952-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Olseston was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct for “hurling profanities and personal insults” (¶14) at Janesville police officers as they came and left the police station, as well as filming some of the encounters. Three of the five counts can’t be prosecuted because Oleston’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment; the other two can be, because they went beyond protected speech.

State v. Alexandrea C.E. Throndson, 2020AP1081-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Throndson raises two due process challenges to her sentencing: that the judge relied on inaccurate information and was objectively based. The court of appeals rejects both.

Outagamie County DHHS v. M.D.H., 2020AP86, District 3, 7/13/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence at M.D.H.’s final commitment hearing proved he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.d.

B.W. v. S.H., 2021AP43 & 2021AP44, District 3, 6/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the facts of this case, terminating S.H.’s parental rights on continuing denial of physical placement grounds under § 48.415(4) violated his right to substantive due process because his indigency precluded him for seeking changes in the physical placement order.

State v. David Wayne Ross, 2020AP261, 6/29/21, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Over a dissent, the court of appeals holds that, even if Ross is right that his trial lawyer performed deficiently in certain respects, Ross’s defense wasn’t prejudiced.