On Point

State v. Wayne L. Timm, 2023AP351, 1/19/24, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police thought Timm might be responsible for a string of burglaries in the area, and so were looking out for his vehicle. When an officer spotted it one night, he pulled it over for going 31 in a 25. Shining his flashlight into the car, the officer saw the flat end of a tire iron such as could be used to pry things open; the iron was partly covered by a pair of jeans. He searched the vehicle and discovered more potentially “burglarious” tools. Based in part on this evidence, the police secured a GPS warrant for Timm’s car. The GPS tracking led to the discovery of evidence connecting him to specific burglaries. He moved to suppress the search of his car; when that was denied, he entered a plea.

State v. D.K., 2023AP292-293, 1/3/24, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Despite a novel challenge as to the integrity of his plea, COA rejects “Daniel’s” arguments and affirms in this TPR appeal.

Waukesha County v. M.A.C., 2023AP533, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/11/23; reversed 7/5/24 case activity (including briefs)

Showing that SCOW’s interest in 51 appeals remains unabated, SCOW has accepted review of a big case that could result in the overturning of relatively recent precedent.

Douglas County v. M.L, 2022AP141, 12/28/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Faced with a challenge to the circuit court’s competency in this protective placement appeal, COA holds that the appellant has forfeited his challenge and therefore affirms.

Manitowoc County HSD v. K.R., 2022AP1975-78, 12/27/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Presented with a confusing pro se attack on permanency orders entered in these underlying CHIPS cases, COA affirms largely because it cannot ascertain the nature of the appellant’s challenge.

The court of appeals issued the final two publication orders of the year on November 29, 2023, and December 21, 2023. Two criminal law related decision are included in the orders: State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2023 WI App 61 (holding that the “execution” of a search warrant does not include forensic analysis that can […]

State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.

State v. Lauren Dannielle Peterson, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Peterson’s circuit court win is short-lived after the court of appeals concludes that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate an OWI investigation and probable cause existed to ask Peterson to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT).

State v. James T. Kettner, 2023AP160, 161, 162, 11/28/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity

Kettner, pro se, appealed from three traffic forfeiture judgments and claimed that an open records violation prevented him from presenting video evidence that would have proved [his] innocence. The court of appeals rejects his claim and affirms the judgments.

State v. S.H., 2023AP1786, 12/19/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.H. raises a very specific challenge to the order terminating her parental rights to her son, H.C.: that the circuit court failed to consider the age of H.C.’s foster mother with regard to the best interests of the child at disposition. The court of appeals rejects the challenge, and S.H.’s reliance on several prospective adoption cases, because the focus in the TPR context is whether the child is adoptable and whether the TPR would provide stability and permanence to the child, not on “whether a proposed adoptive resource is going to be approved in later proceedings.” Op., ¶19.