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.
There was reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests after “fender bender”
Milwaukee County v. Nicholas O. Moran, 2017AP1047 & 2017AP1048, District 1, 1/23/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The totality of the circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to believe Moran was operating while intoxicated, so police were justified in continuing to detain Moran to conduct field sobriety tests.
No erroneous exercise of discretion in TPR
State v. M.D.W., 2017AP1945 & 1946, 1/23/18, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.D.W. appeals only the disposition in the TPR of her two children. She argues that the court erred in its consideration of the statutory factors. The court of appeals disagrees.
SCOTUS: Cops had probable cause to arrest partiers in vacant house
District of Columbia v. Wesby, USSC No. 15-1485, 2017 WL 491521 (January 22, 2018), reversing Wesby v. District of Columbia, 765 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The probable-cause determination in this case is quite fact-specific, and the qualified immunity issue is of little interest to criminal practitioners. Perhaps more interesting is Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, which signals she is open to reconsidering whether the existence of probable cause necessarily validates an arrest.
SCOW: Defendant can’t seek expunction after sentence is imposed
State v. Diamond J. Arberry, 2018 WI 7, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court holds that a defendant may not seek expunction after sentence is imposed because the language of § 973.015 and State v. Matasek, 2014 WI 27, 353 Wis. 2d 601, 846 N.W.2d 811, require the decision regarding expunction to be made at the sentencing hearing.
Officer had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop
Dane County v. Brenna N. Weber, 2017AP1024, District 4, 1/11/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Weber was legitimately stopped for speeding, but argues there was insufficient basis for the officer to extend the traffic stop to conduct field sobriety tests. The court of appeals holds the totality of the circumstances justified the continued detention.
SCOW pounds new nail in 4th Amendment coffin, exposes rift between Justices R.G. Bradley and Kelly
State v. Frederick S. Smith, 2018 WI 2, 1/9/18, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
This 60-page, 4-3 decision authorizing an officer to continue a traffic stop even after he realizes that he does not have reasonable suspicion is worth reading. Justice Kelly says the result sends “a tremor through the Foundation of the Fourth Amendment” and should “shock” you. Opinion, ¶67, ¶79. It certainly appears to contradict Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) and should make for a great cert petition.
SCOW: Defendant waived, rather than forfeited, right to be present for trial
State v. Michael L. Washington, 2018 WI 3, 1/9/18, affirming a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court determines that, despite the absence of any colloquy, a defendant who was not present for his trial waived his statutory right to be there.
Defense win: Inaccurate advice about consequences of going to trial invalidates plea
State v. Mario Douglas, 2018 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)
Douglas got inaccurate advice about the prison time he faced if he went to trial instead of taking the State’s plea offer. The inaccurate advice makes his plea invalid.
Once again, FTA leads to TPR
State v. A.S., 2017AP1349, District 1, 1/9/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to adjourn the disposition hearing in A.S.’s termination of parental rights proceeding after A.S. failed to appear, and the subsequent termination order didn’t violate A.S.’s rights to be present and to participate in the hearing.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.