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 issues first impression decision on constitutionality of warrant to search contents of smartphone, holds “the warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the [smart]phone,” and its authorization must be “limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established… in the warrant’s supporting affidavit”
State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.
COA: Circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in finding deceased officer’s body camera footage could not be authenticated.
State v. Billy Ray Edward Johnson, 2024AP1135, 12/2/25, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA reverses order denying State’s motion to admit body camera footage compiled by a deceased police officer.
Defense win: COA reverses Chapter 51 order and finds County did not prove current dangerousness
Portage County v. T.W.P., 2025AP1183, 11/26/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a case involving a commitment order originating in “2008 or 2009,” COA finds that the County failed to prove that T.W.P. is currently dangerous and therefore reverses.
COA finds sufficient evidence to affirm trial conviction for violating domestic abuse injunction by sending Facebook message.
State v. Clinton J. Adams, 2025AP1179, 11/26/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms jury’s conviction for knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction over sufficiency challenge.
COA clarifies “serious crime” factor in involuntary med challenges; rejects challenges to treatment plan and affirms
State v. B.M.T., 2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.
SCOTUS reverses COA order granting habeas relief because it relied on ground not raised by parties.
Terrence Clark v. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney, USSC No. 25-52, 11/24/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS reverses Fourth Circuit’s order granting habeas relief because the court relied on ground that was not presented by the parties.
SCOTUS: Mississippi statute mandating screening child witness from defendant violates right to confrontation.
Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi, USSC No. 24-1159, 11/24/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS reverses conviction for child abuse because Mississippi law that requires screening at trial for child witnesses conflicted with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to face-to-face confrontation.
Defense Win: COA relies on Melanie L. and Virgil D. to reverse involuntary medication order
Outagamie County v. R.M.R., 2025AP561, 11/18/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a strong defense win, COA rejects the County’s arguments and holds that the evidence is insufficient to support this medication order as the County failed to name the particular medication it sought to involuntarily administer.
In surprise PFR grant, SCOW indicates it will review requirements applicable to annual protective placement reviews
Racine County v. R.P.L., , 2025AP813-FT, petition for review of a unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25
In a surprise grant outside the usual petition conference cycle, SCOW accepts review of a case involving the evidentiary requirements for an annual review of a protective placement issue.
Defense Win: In TPR rife with error, COA holds that court erroneously granted default judgment and clarifies ICWA voluntary termination procedure
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Z.N., 2025AP1817, 11/7/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unpublished but citable case, COA clarifies there is no requirement that respondent appear in person for a voluntary termination of parental rights in an ICWA case and reverses the circuit court’s default finding.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.