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.

Defense Win! COA remands for new CHIPS trial

State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.

SCOW grants review in case regarding due process procedures applicable to Zoom hearings

State v. Grady, 2023AP1464-CR, petition for review of a summary disposition order, granted 1/16/25; affirmed 6/13/25 case activity

With an increasingly rare review grant, SCOW signals its willingness to address the mechanics by which Zoom hearings are conducted so as ensure due process guarantees are observed.

Court of Appeals certification asks whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when ESPs scan for child pornography

State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak, 2024AP469-CR, 1/16/25, District 4; case activity (including briefs)

Rauch Sharak’s appeal concerns whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when an electronic service provider (ESP) scans for and reviews digital files in an individual’s account that are flagged as child pornography; and when law enforcement subsequently opens and views any flagged files that the ESP sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

Defense Win! Evidence insufficient to continue ch. 55 protective placement orders

Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).

COA: Suppressing evidence of blood draw not viable remedy even if conditions of confinement were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Holly J. Grimslid, 2024AP954, 1/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA holds that, even if officer’s actions denying the defendant’s request to use the bathroom while he waited to obtain warrant for a blood draw were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, suppressing evidence of the blood draw is not a viable remedy.

COA finds consent to blood draw valid in a detailed discussion of Wisconsin’s implied consent statutes recommended for publication.

State v. Christopher A. Gore, 2023AP169-CR, 1/7/25, District III (recommended for publication), case activity

The Court of Appeals held, in a decision recommended for publication, that Christopher Gore’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent, and the officer’s statement that he would seek to obtain a warrant if Gore did not consent did not invalidate his consent.

COA rejects challenges to continued protective placement and affirms

Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.

Catching up on COA’s publication orders

In October, November and December, COA ordered several cases published which are relevant to our practice:

COA affirms order authorizing involuntary medication under ch. 51 where, contrary to the evidence, appellant denies mental illness.

Dane County v. M.A.A., 2024AP1589, 12/27/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order authorizing involuntarily administering medication to M.A.A. in light of evidence that M.A.A. denies he has a mental illness.

COA holds that testimony of treating psychiatrist cured any flaws in treatment plan and rejects challenges to involuntary medication order

State v. D.E.C., 2024AP1789-CR & 2024AP1799-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In yet another published decision pertaining to an involuntary medication order entered in conjunction with pretrial competency proceedings, COA holds that the testimony of a treating psychiatrist, in conjunction with the proposed treatment plan, was legally sufficient and affirms the order for treatment.

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.