On Point

State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)

This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:

¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.

Looks like NYU Professor Ann Washington has done the hard work for you. Her new article, How to Argue With an Algorithm: Lessons from the Compass-ProPublica Debate, strives to inform courtroom arguments over the integrity of algorithms used to predict risk during the sentencing process.

Speaking of algorithms, a few weeks ago SCOWstats ran SCOW’s majority opinions through one called Linguistic Word Inquiry Count to determine which justice used, for example, the biggest or most emotional words or displayed the most analytical thinking, clout and so forth. In this post, SCOWstats applies the same tool to dissenting opinions and finds […]

Who knew the law librarians at the Library of Congress had their own blog-In Custodia Legis? History lovers will enjoy this post about a writ Lincoln wrote.

Scotusblog’s Amy Howe has published this post about today’s oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which addresses the constitutionality of our implied consent statute’s authorization for taking a blood sample from an unconscious person. A transcript of the argument is here.

Brown County DHHS v. L.F.H., Sr., 2019AP145, District 3, 4/23/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The County filed a petition to terminate L.F.H.’s parental rights based on a continuing denial of his periods of physical placement or visitation with his son, Leon (a pseudonym). The circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment at the grounds phase, but that was error because the County failed to prove the CHIPS dispositional order satisfied the requirements of § 48.415(4).

J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children.

ASPD Andy Hinkel will argue Mitchell v. Wisconsin to the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday.  The issue is whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Click here to read SCOTUSblog’s preview of the case. It points out that 29 states have […]

State v. Nelson Garcia, Jr., 2019 WI 40, 4/19/19; case activity (including briefs) ASPD Pam Moorshead briefed this appeal and argued it to SCOW less than two weeks ago. The lead issue was whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches upon the finding of probable cause and setting of bail by a court commissioner. Justice […]

If you’re seeking review in SCOTUS, be advised that the court recently changed its rules. Read SCOTUSblog’s summary here, which links to the amendments.