On Point

State v. Curtis D. Christianson, 2015AP24400-CR, District 3, 11/1/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer observed Christianson deviate from his lane of traffic “numerous” times by going over the center line and fog line; some of the deviations occurred while he was driving through a construction zone that had orange barrels blocking access to the left lane. (¶¶3-5). Those observations gave the officer probable cause to stop Christianson for a traffic law violation.

State v. F.B., 2016AP497, 11/1/16, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

F.B. seeks reversal of the circuit court’s denial of a permanent stay of his obligation to register. No briefs are available and it is difficult to tell what his argument might have been; in any case the court of appeals holds the circuit court properly exercised its discretion.

Question presented (as formulated by Scotusblog):

Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

State v. Thomas D. Dowling, 2016AP838-CR, 10/26/16, District II (one-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is an ineffective assistance claim against Dowling’s trial counsel for not moving to suppress evidence obtained after Dowling told police officers–whom his wife had allowed into their apartment–to leave.

County of Sheboygan v. Lee F. Kleinhans, 2016AP836, 10/26/16, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)

Lee Kleinhans appeals, pro se, from his bench trial conviction for failing to obey an official traffic sign contrary to Wis. Stat. § 346.04(2). Things never really get off the ground.

County of Fond du Lac v. Stuart D. Muche, 2016 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)

Muche threw a high school graduation party  for his son and (gasp!) some of the underage guests brought beer to it. Sheriff’s deputies showed up and cited Muche for violation of Fond du Lac County’s social host ordinance, which resulted in a forfeiture of $1,000. This decision dismisses the forfeiture and, according to the Journal Sentinel, could require changes to “dozens of social host ordinances aimed at combatting underage drinking.” In short, this decision is SCOW bait.

County of Fond Du Lac v. Blade N. Ramthun, 2016AP825, District 2, 10/26/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A deputy stopped Ramthun for speeding and suspected that he had been drinking. Because it was 1:08 a.m. and raining hard on Highway 45, the deputy drove him 3 to 4 miles to a gas station to conduct field sobriety tests. Ramthun argued that his temporary detention and movement violated §968.24, which codifies Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1986).

According to a new report by researchers from Emory Law School and the American Constitutional Society, the more TV ads aired during a state supreme court election, the less likely justices are to vote for criminal defendants. The analysis covers 30 states, including Wisconsin. Click here.

He also says Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer are the only “qualified” justices. Click here to read more.

State v. Thomas J. Queever, 2016 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)

Thomas Queever tried to break into a house. We know this because the home’s security system captured video of him doing so. The circuit court and the court of appeals ordered him to pay the cost of said security system, concluding that the expense of installing it was the “result of a crime considered at sentencing,” even though it was installed prior to the burglary of which Queever was convicted. Does the court of appeals’ authority extend to reversing the arrow of time?