On Point

State v. Brian A. Plencner, 2019AP517-CR, District 2, 10/28/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals holds trial attorney was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of evidence found on Plencner’s computer equipment based on the delay in analyzing the equipment.

On October 29, 2020, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related opinions:

State v. William Lawrence Bonfiglio, 2019AP188-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police immobilized Bonfiglio because they thought he was going to resist the blood draw authorized under the search warrant they had obtained. The court of appeals rejects Bonfiglio’s claims this constituted an unreasonable execution of the warrant.

State v. Nathan J. Friar, 2019AP1578-CR, District 4, 10/22/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Friar challenges his conviction for sexual assault by use of force, claiming the circuit court erroneously admitted certain evidence and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. The court of appeals rejects his challenges.

Eau Claire County DHS v. S.E., 2019AP894, review of a published opinion granted 10/21/20, case activity.

When the court orders a child in need of protection or services (“CHIPS”) placed outside the family home, a parent’s rights may be terminated if he or she fails to meet the conditions for the child’s return in the timeframe set out by statute. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2)(a). In April 2018, the legislature shortened this timeframe. Under either version, the CHIPS order placing the child outside the home must include “notice” of “any grounds for termination of parental rights[.]” Wis. Stat. §§ 48.415(2)(a) and
48.356.

Issues for Review:

Whether as a matter of statutory construction the new, shorter timeframe begins with the initial CHIPS order, even if it predates the change in the statute and thus does not include notice of the shorter timeframe.

Whether starting the shorter timeframe with a CHIPS order that predates the statutory change violates a parent’s due process rights.

Columbia County v. J.M.C., Jr., 2020AP1001, District 4, 10/22/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

J.M.C. was taken to jail on possible criminal charges. Two days later, the County filed a Chapter 51 petition for his commitment.  Section 51.20(7) provides that the circuit court must hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of taking a person into custody under §51.20.  The circuit court dismissed the petition for violation of the 72-hour rule, and the County appealed arguing that the circuit court erred in determining what triggered 72-hour clock triggered.

Washington County v. Kelly L. Springer, 2020AP491, 10/21/20, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

After being stopped for a suspected OWI, Springer failed field sobriety tests and his preliminary breath test showed a .18% blood alcohol content. A sheriff read the Informing the Accused form and asked if he would submit to a chemical test of his breath. Springer did not answer even after being asked 6 to 7 times. Then he said: “I already gave you my test.” The sheriff took this to mean “no.” The circuit court held the refusal unlawful under §343.305(9)(a) of Wisconsin’s implied consent law , and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Dawn M. Prado, 2016AP308, cross-petitions for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 10/21/20; case activity (including briefs and, now, PFRs!)

You’ve heard this one before. Here’s our post on the court of appeals decision, which struck down the unconscious-driver provisions of the implied-consent statute but nevertheless declined to suppress the blood draw results under the good-faith doctrine. Perhaps you imagined the matter resolved, particularly given that after several failures to decide the question, SCOW had begun declining the court of appeals’ certification requests on the topic. No such luck.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2019AP404-CR, District 3 (10/20/20), review granted 11/18/20, circuit court judgment affirmed, 2021 WI 68; case activity (including briefs)

Burch … contends the [Green Bay Police Department] and the [Brown County Sheriff’s Office] violated his Fourth Amendment rights in three ways: (1) the GBPD exceeded the scope of his consent to search his cell phone by downloading the phone’s entire contents, rather than only the text messages; (2) the GBPD unlawfully retained the entire cell phone download after it completed its June 2016 investigation into the vehicle incidents; and (3) the BCSO had no lawful authority to conduct a second search of the cell phone download in August 2016. Because these issues raise novel questions regarding the application of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to the vast array of digital information contained in modern cell phones, we certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Lange v. California, USSC No. 20-18, certiorari granted 10/19/20; vacated and remanded, 6/23/21

Question presented:

Does pursuit of a person who a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant?