On Point

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 population to levels that would permit appropriate social distancing within the institutions.

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 NYTimes article recommends against using Zoom for sensitive matters. It advises users to turn on all security settings have been turned on or use a safer alternative to Zoom.

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 grant review here.

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.

This NACDL article just made the top 10 downloads in the criminal procedure e-journal: “Please Tweet Responsibly: The Social and Professional Ethics of Public Defenders Using Client Information in Social Media Advocacy.” Read it here. 

Listen up, appellate lawyers! Late on April 2nd, SCOW issued another order adjusting appellate court operations due to the pandemic. The first order, issued March 17th, modified working hours for the court of appeals/supreme court clerk’s office and extended many appellate deadlines by 21 days.

Here is the meat of the April 2nd order:

Two national papers are reporting an upside to “stay at home” orders. Read more about their investigations here.