On Point

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2020 WI 33,  reversing a published court of appeals opinion; 4/10/20; case activity

This is a BIG case for Chapter 51 lawyers! In a 4-3 opinion, SCOW held that when a court commits a prison inmate under Chapter 51, it cannot order involuntary medication without finding the inmate dangerous first. The decision changes trial procedure for inmates commitments, but also has implications for the involuntary medication of non-inmates under  Chapter 51.

State v. Jason A. Marcotte, 2020 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)

After Marcotte was terminated from drug court and his probation revoked, he was sentenced by the same judge who’d presided over his case in drug court. Under the facts in this case, both the judge’s comments during drug court and his dual role as drug court judge and sentencing judge demonstrate he was objectively biased and thus violated Marcotte’s right to an impartial judge.

State v. Larry Alexander Norton, 2019AP1796-CR, 4/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In which the occupant of a legally parked car becomes the object of police scrutiny, for very little apparent reason, and all is found to be copacetic under the Fourth Amendment.

Waushara County DHS v. A.J.P., 2019AP2387, District 4, 4/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering all the factors under § 48.426(3) when it decided to terminate A.J.P.’s parental rights.

Yesterday, the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the state ACLU, Disability Rights Wisconsin and two named inmate plaintiffs filed an original action in the state supreme court. The petition and its supporting appendix seek to compel the governor, corrections secretary, and parole board chair to exercise their powers to immediately decrease our state’s prison […]

Kansas v. Glover, USSC No. 18-556, 2020 WL 1668283, 4/6/20, reversing State v. Glover, 422 P.3d 64 (Kan. 2018); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

In a self-described “narrow” decision, the Supreme Court holds that, in the absence of information negating the inference that the owner was driving, a police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a car based on the fact the registered owner of the car had a revoked driver’s license.

Zoom hearings are common now, but so are reports of security flaws in the platform. Plus Zoombombing (a troll crashing a meeting and bombarding it with pornography) has become a thing.  Could this happen at a Zoom court hearing that is required by law to be confidential? Think Chapter 48, 51 and 55 hearings. This […]

Speaking of Zoom, due to the pandemic SCOW will begin holding oral arguments over Zoom, and they will be streamed over Wisconsin Eye. One will be Milton Eugene Warren v. Michael Meisner, Appeal No. 2019AP567, which concerns the confusion SCOW created with its decision in State v. Starks. See our post on the decision to […]

This post by Alan Rozenshstein on Lawfare explains how “the U.S. is struggling with a ‘coronavirus trilemma”: It wants to protect lives, ease social isolation, and protect privacy and civil liberties but it can only do two of those at the same time.

United States v. Terrill A. Rickmon, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-2054, 3/11/20

Police stopped a vehicle because it was emerging from the source of a ShotSpotter alert. The 7th Circuit holds that the totality of the circumstances gave the officer responding to the scene reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.