On Point

State v. Calvin Lee Brown, 2018AP766-CR, District 1, 4/9/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brown challenged a search warrant that was executed at his home, arguing the police omitted information about J.R.R., an informant who was cited in the warrant application, and that the information provided reason to doubt J.R.R.’s credibility. The court of appeals rejects the challenge.

State v. Michael J. Scott, et al., 2019 WI App 22; case activity (including briefs)

Applying long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court of appeals holds that the exclusionary rule can be used to defend against a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the state. But it also holds the state should have a shot at arguing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule also applies, despite the state’s failure to assert this claim in the circuit court.

Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., Jr., 2018AP2440 to 208AP2443, District 4, 4/4/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase R.H.H.’s termination of parental rights proceedings, the circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of continuing denial of visitation under § 48.415(4). Not so fast, says the court of appeals.

State v. Timothy Edward Curtis, 2018AP920-CR, 4/2/19, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Curtis with a 2nd offense OWI. He moved to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest on the grounds that the officer didn’t have probable cause for the arrest in the first place. He lost in the circuit court and in the court of appeals.

State v. T.R.C., 2018AP820, 4/2/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity

T.R.C. pled “no contest” to grounds for termination of her parental rights to D. On appeal she argued that her plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, that her trial counsel was ineffective, and that the TPR order should be vacated in the interests of justice. The court of appeals affirmed.

Kansas v. Glover, USSC No. 18-556, certiorari granted 4/1/19

Question presented:

Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.

State v. Corey R. Fugere, 2019 WI 33, 3/28/19, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Pretend you’re a defendant trying to decide whether to enter a plea. You know that maximum term of imprisonment you face. You also know that pleading NGI is one of your options. However, the circuit court doesn’t tell you (or perhaps misinforms you) about the nature and length of the commitment that will follow from pleading NGI. How can you make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary NGI plea if you don’t know the consequences of it?

On March 27, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related cases: Timothy W. Miller v. Angela L. Carroll, 2019 WI App 10 (judge’s acceptance of litigant’s Facebook “friend” request created appearance of bias) State v. Kelly James Kloss, 2019 WI App 13 (Defense win on soliciting reckless injury […]

State v. Caleb J. Hawley, 2018AP1601-CR, District 4, 3/28/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The judge who sentenced Hawley after revocation of probation stayed the sentence and ordered it to start some 14 months down the road, when Hawley would finished serving the 18 months of conditional jail time ordered in a different case. That stay was illegal, and the remedy is resentencing—not, as Hawley argues, credit for the time he was in custody since the day of his sentencing after revocation.

Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16, petition for review granted, 8/19/19; case activity

C.S., a mentally ill prisoner committed pursuant to §51.20(1)(ar), challenged the constitutionality of §51.61(1)(g) on its face and as applied because it allowed the government to medicate him against his will without finding him dangerous first. In a published decision, the court of appeals upholds the statute.