On Point

Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the petition for review):

1. When a police officer performs a lawful traffic stop, is it reasonable for the officer to make contact with the driver to ask for the driver’s name and identification and to explain the basis for the stop, even if the reasonable suspicion supporting the stop has dispelled by the time the officer does so?

2. When an officer is unable to request a driver’s name and identification and explain the basis for a traffic stop because, as in this case, the driver indicates that the driver’s side window and door are both broken, is the officer then permitted to open the passenger’s side door to achieve that goal?

Three separate opinions in Seifert v. Balink result in a 5-2 majority upholding admission of expert medical testimony under the Daubert standard.  Because Seifert is the first Wisconsin Supreme Court case interpreting this standard for admission of expert testimony, it provides guidance to lower courts and to practitioners regarding the 2011 statutory changes.

State v. Joshua D. Winberg, 2016AP108-CR, District 3, 1/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver was operating under the influence.

Review of a published court of appeals decision, 2016 WI App 64; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from petition for review):

Whether an officer’s justification to search is objectively reasonable where the suspect is not observed doing or saying anything suspicious, but cooperating in circumstances that the officer believes are suspicious?

Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present additional evidence to show Floyd did not provide valid consent to the search?

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; affirmed 2017 WI 76, case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from petition for review):

Law enforcement officers arrested Kenneth Asboth at a private storage facility. The car he had been driving was parked in the lane between rows of storage units, in front Mr. Asboth’s leased unit. The officers seized the car, towed it to a police station, and searched it.

1.  Must a community-caretaker impoundment of a vehicle be governed by “standard criteria” limiting the discretion of law enforcement officers and, if so, was the impoundment here made in accord with such criteria?
2. Was the impoundment here a valid community caretaker action where the vehicle was parked at a private storage facility? Relatedly, does the Constitution require the state to show that a community caretaker impoundment and search is not a pretext concealing criminal investigatory motives?

Seriously. See the USA Today article here.

The ABA Journal recently ran an in-depth article about public defender lawsuits over inadequate funding. At least 5 of those lawsuits achieved successful results. Six are pending, and more lawsuits are expected. Read the article here.

In November, On Point posted on The Amicus Machine, a study of amicus briefs filed in SCOTUS. Today’s edition of SCOWstats reports on amicus briefs in SCOW: how many are filed, who is filing them, and do they influence the discussion of the issues. Click SCOWstats to learn more. Note that for criminal appeals Attorney Rob Henak (on behalf of […]

Seifert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2,1/6/17,  affirming a published court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

It’s true. SCOW’s first decision on §907.02(1), which adopted the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony is 134 pages long and includes 4 separate opinions, but don’t despair. It’s not the mess you imagine. Reading the first 3 opinions by Abrahamson (joined by A.W. Bradley), Ziegler (solo) and Gableman (joined by Roggensack) feels like the kids’ game “spot the difference between these pictures.” They are more alike than different. You might even wonder why the 5 of them couldn’t just sign on to 1 majority opinion. Or you might not. Bottom line: 5 justices affirmed the admission of a medical doctor’s expert testimony even though it was based on his personal experience, not science.

State v. Damion L. Brown, 2015AP2029-CR, 1/4/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Damion Brown’s roommate consented to a search of their apartment after being arrested on suspicion of dealing heroin. Brown raises three challenges to the voluntariness and validity of that consent.