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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
COA rejects a panoply of challenges to TPR and affirms
Kenosha County DC&FS v. K.E.H., 2024AP1101, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In a dense and fact-dependent appeal stemming from a TPR jury trial, COA applies strict legal standards in order to reject the appellant’s multiple claims of ineffectiveness.
COA rejects challenges to extension order; holds that stipulation to original commitment dooms sufficiency challenge
Sheboygan County v. L.L., 2024AP1443, 2/26/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA confronts the usual challenges to a recommitment order and affirms based on a somewhat novel legal theory–that L.L.’s earlier stipulation to a commitment order undermines her sufficiency challenge to the recommitment.
COA affirms OWI 1st conviction despite hand sanitizer contamination defense
County of Waukesha v. Jacob A. Vecitis, 2023AP919, 2/12/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Vecitis appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of OWI 1st, and an order denying reconsideration. COA concludes the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and affirms.
COA holds there was reasonable suspicion to seize motorist for unreadable license plate even if plate was, in actuality, readable
State v. Glen Michael Braun, 2022AP1764, 2/25/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case demonstrating the tough hill that litigants must climb to prove an officer lacks reasonable suspicion, COA affirms an order denying Braun’s suppression motion based on a possible equipment violation.
COA dismisses another ch. 51 recommitment appeal as moot
Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, 2/12/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA dismisses “Rex’s” D.J.W. and sufficiency challenges to his 2023 recommitment and involuntary medication orders as moot.
COA: Traffic stop not unreasonably prolonged by officer’s request for field sobriety tests
State v. Emily Anne Ertl, 2023AP234-CR, 2/18/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Ertl appeals the denial of her motion to suppress on the ground that police impermissibly extended the scope of her initial detention when the officer asked her if she would consent to field sobriety tests. COA affirms, concluding that her detention was not unreasonably prolonged by law enforcement’s single request that she voluntarily submit to field sobriety tests.
SCOTUS’s Most Recent Order List
While we don’t usually cover SCOTUS’s order list unless there’s something special going on, the most recent order clocked in at nearly 60 pages and featured a number of interesting dissents that we thought our readers would be intrigued by.
Seventh Circuit Update
There has been a real paucity of relevant cases from the Seventh. We keep saving this article and hoping more could be added, but until things heat up again, we thought we’d share these cases from the last few months that might be relevant to our readers.
Guest Post: SPD Immigration Practice Coordinators on Immigration Law Developments
With a new administration comes changes to our immigration laws. Fortunately, the SPD’s Immigration Practice Coordinators are here to provide you with an updated analysis of the many legal developments relevant to our clients.
Defense Win! COA reverses order denying suppression motion in juvenile appeal
State v. K.R.W., 2024AP1210, 2/19/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although COA does not address K.R.W.’s broader constitutional argument, it holds that suppression is warranted given the State’s violation of a statute requiring an intake worker to warn a juvenile of his right to counsel and right against self-incrimination before taking that juvenile’s statement.
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.