On Point

State v. James A. Webb, 2015AP1613-CR, 3/22/16, District 1 (-1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals here reverses a suppression order and holds that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Webb’s SUV because its high-mount stop light was not working while the driver was braking. During the stop, officers discovered that Webb was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.

Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts, USSC No. 14-10078, 2016WL1078932 (per curiam), vacating Commonwealth v. Caetano, 470 Mass. 774, 26 N.E.2d 688 (2015); SCOTUSblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)

Jaime Caetano obtained a stun gun in order to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. When she was prosecuted for violating a Massachusetts statute that prohibited the possession of stun guns, she argued that the law violated her 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against her. SCOTUS, in one fell swoop, granted her cert petition and reversed. Here is the meat of its two-page per curiam opinion:

It’s not just your imagination. This term, SCOW could set a record for issuing the fewest opinions at the slowest pace since SCOWstats started keeping records. Click here to see whether there’s hope for a comeback. And remember that new operating procedure aimed at speeding up the release of opinions? Fuhgeddaboudit! That was sooo last term.  🙂

State v. Patrick K. Tourville, 2016 WI 17, 3/15/2016, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Patrick Tourville pled to four crimes in a deal that called on the state to recommend a sentence no higher than the one recommended by the PSI. The PSI recommended a prison term for each count; the state recommended that these terms be run consecutively. So when the state asked for consecutive time even though the PSI didn’t, did it honor its commitment to follow the PSI? If you answered “no,” the one thing we know about you is that you’re not a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

State v. Jack M. Suriano, 2015AP959-CR, 3/15/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/13/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 42; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court never warned Suriano that forfeiture of his right to counsel was a possibility and did not engage Suriano in a colloquy about the difficulties and dangers of self-representation. Nonetheless, its finding that Suriano forfeited his right to appointed counsel is affirmed because the warning and colloquy are only “recommended,” and not required, procedures.

State v. J.S., 2015AP707, District 1, 3/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the failure to assume parental responsibility statute, § 48.415(6), to J.S. did not violate his right to substantive due process because J.S.’s own behavior, not the CHIPS order removing his daughter S.L. from her parental home, was what prevented him from taking part in S.L.’s daily supervision and care.

Columbia County v. Stephen M. Kokesh, 2015AP1650, District 4, 3/10/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The totality of the circumstances—the driving observed by the officer and the time of the driving—provided reasonable suspicion stop Kobkesh’s car, despite Kokesh’s creative attempt to show otherwise.

State v. Steve C. Deterding, 2015AP195-CR, 3/10/16, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A police officer lawfully removed the object he felt in Deterring’s pants pocket during a lawful pat-down for weapons.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point)

What is required to show that an evidentiary blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician” for purposes of Wis. Stat. § 343.305(5)(b)?

State v. Todd Brian Tobatto, 2016 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)

The news, in this otherwise run-of-the-mill case, is the standard of review.