Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
COA: Circuit court does not lose competency in TPR proceeding when it fails to comply with statutory requirement to hear testimony to support grounds for termination before accepting plea.
Barron County v. K.L.P., 2026AP460 & 2026AP461, 7/21/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA held that the circuit court did not lose competency to enter disposition orders in an action to terminate parental rights if it accepts a no-contest plea to the grounds for termination without hearing testimony, even if Wis. Stat. § 48.422(3) requires testimony.
SCOTUS adds excessive fine case to its 2026-27 docket.
Kenneth J. Jouppi v. Alaska, USSC No. 25-246, certiorari granted 7/20/26
SCOTUS will consider an Alaska bush pilot’s case seeking to prevent the State of Alaska from forfeiting his plane because he attempted to transport beer to a dry village.
COA finds reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop to investigate for OWI and probable cause to arrest.
Village of Grafton v. Blake S. Barnes, 2026AP160, 7/15/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his stop and arrest for speeding and operating while intoxicated where the defendant drove 48 miles per hour on a road posted for 25 miles per hour at 12:30 a.m., the officer smelled alcohol in the vehicle, the defendant exhibited glassy eyes, admitted he drank alcohol that night, and failed field sobriety tests.
COA once again creates questions about the proper application of D.J.W. in recommitment appeals
Winnebago County v. J.S., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a recommitment appeal alleging a lack of sufficient findings, COA invokes a somewhat novel legal theory to excuse an oral ruling that it agrees could have been more thorough.
7th Circuit Cases for May and June
The last two months brought a number of interesting cases including a challenge to a Dropbox search, some 4A cases, a coroner keeping mementos from the bodies of crime victims and a would-be pornographer claiming he lacked knowledge his victim was 16.
COA finds challenge to contempt order in CHIPS case moot
Manitowoc County HSD v. K.H., 2025AP1865, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
Confronted with a relatively straightforward challenge to the circuit court’s discretion, COA finds that no exceptions to mootness require it to address K.H.’s arguments.
SCOW holds that appeal from Watts review is not moot; applies de novo standard (for now) and affirms
Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26, 7/7/26, affirming an unpublished decision of the court of appeals; case activity
SCOW holds that this appeal from an annual review of a protective placement is not moot, somewhat reluctantly applies the governing standard of review, and affirms.
In light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B, COA reverses circuit court’s order dismissing Ch. 51 petition because expert report was not timely.
Ozaukee County v. T.D.D., 2025AP2257, 7/8/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA reversed the circuit court’s order dismissing Ozaukee County’s petition for commitment under Chapter 51 in light of SCOW’s decision in M.J.B. that failing to comply with the 48-hour deadline to make expert reports available to counsel did not divest the circuit court of competency.
COA finds consent to blood test was voluntary under since-repealed provision of Implied Consent Statute
State v. Richard A. Tourtillot, 2024AP1831, 7/7/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
The COA determined the defendant’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary under a since-repealed portion of the Implied Consent Law.
COA affirms suppression order because officer’s mistake of law did not provide reasonable suspicion for traffic stop.
State v. Michael P. Bundy, 2025AP1072, 6/25/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing the fruits of a traffic stop because an officer’s mistake of law regarding the driver’s suspected violation of the window tinting regulation did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.