On Point

Rodriguez v. United States, USSC No. 13-9972, 2015 WL 1780927 (April 21, 2015), reversing United States v. Rodriguez, 741 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)

Some lower courts have held that police may briefly prolong a completed traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. The Supreme Court rejects that approach, and holds that a seizure justified only by a traffic violation “‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” (Slip op. at 1, quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005)). Thus, prolonging a traffic stop requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic infraction.

State v. Jennifer L. Wilson, 2014AP2358-CR, District 3, 4/21/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A person’s presence in an area with frequent calls for drug activity and a suspected drug house is not, by itself, enough to justify an investigative stop of the person; the police must have particularized information that the person might be engaged in criminal activity. Police lacked that kind of particularized information in this case, so the stop was unlawful.

What a difference 18 years makes.  In 1995-96, SCOW issued 75 decisions. A whopping 87% of them were unanimous.  Abrahamson was in the majority 90% of the time. And the average number of days from oral argument to decision was 86. Now consider last term: 2013-14.  SCOW issued just 61 decisions. Only 39% of them were […]

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by On Point):

Did the community caretaker rule authorize police to conduct a “protective sweep” of a home even though the person who needed assistance had already been identified and transported to a hospital for treatment?

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point):

Do §§ 48.415(2)(a)1. and 48.356(2) require the final CHIPS order filed before a TPR petition warn the parent about grounds for termination and the conditions for return or the child, or is it sufficient that the parent was given “adequate notice” of the grounds for termination and conditions of return during the pendency of the CHIPS proceeding?

Village of DeForest v. Michael Brault, 2014AP2398, District 4, 4/16/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brault’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction for OWI 1st is frivolous, so sanctions under Rule 809.25(3) are appropriate.

State v. Frank D. Roseti, 2014AP2299-CR, District 2, 4/15/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an alleged discovery violation falls short because the defendant does not develop an argument as to why an objection would have prevailed.

State v. James Richard Coleman, 2015 WI App 38; case activity (including briefs)

Coleman’s trial lawyer was ineffective for telling the jury Coleman would testify when Coleman had never said he intended to testify; for telling the jury that Coleman had a prior criminal conviction; and for failing to impeach the victim’s allegations by eliciting inconsistent statements she made to other witnesses.

Check out this new study: Gideon by the Numbers: Emergence of Evidence-Based Practices in Indigent Defense by Jennifer Laurin at the University of Texas Law School. Note to Chapter 980 aficionados: Are men genetically predisposed to commit sex crimes? There’s a new report out on this subject too. Still reeling from the Badgers defeat in the […]

State v. Roberto F. Orozco-Angulo, 2014AP1744-CR, District 2, 4/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The procedure used to obtain a telephonic search warrant for a blood draw following Orozco-Angulo’s arrest for OWI and his refusal to submit to a blood test complied with the requirements of § 968.12(3) and therefore suppression of the evidence was not appropriate.