On Point

State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2013 WI 52, affirming published court of appeals decision; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

In a significant expansion of the third-party consent doctrine, the supreme court holds that a weekend guest may grant consent to police to enter her host’s home and conduct a search. The court concludes the rule governing third-party consent articulated in United States v.

State v. Steffes, 2013 WI 53, on review of a published court of appeals opinion; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley dissent.

Given the absence of precedent, Wisconsin Supreme Court may be out on a limb (or, rather, a pole) on this one.  Apparently, while in prison, Matthew Steffes and his cohorts figured out a way to submit a fictitious business name and stolen personal information to AT&T in order to obtain a phone number. 

Matthew Robert Descamps v. United States, USSC No. 11-9540, 6/20/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Descamps, No. 08-30013 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (unpublished)

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or Act), 18 U. S. C. §924(e), increases the sentences of certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions “for a violent felony,” including “burglary, arson, or extortion.” To determine whether a past conviction is for one of those crimes,

State v. Cherry, 2012AP1137-CR; District 2, 6/19/13; (not recommended for publication); case activity

Cherry was convicted of burglary and criminal damage to property, both as party to a crime.  Here’s what happened:  While investigating a residential burglary, officers saw two black men (Cherry and a companion) walking down a rural road near the scene of the crime. Their pants were wet as if they had been crossing a swampy area near the home.  

State v. Robert J. Betters, 2013 WI App 85; case activity

When sentencing of Betters for child sexual assault, the judge stated that “every child is a gift from God,” and indicated Betters’s conduct toward the victims was “an abomination in the sight of God and in the sight of man, and … totally unacceptable.” ( ¶¶4, 15). The court of appeals rejects Betters’s claim that these references show the judge sentenced Betters based on religious considerations because the “offhand religious references”

State v. Gregory M. Sahs, 2013 WI 51, on review of unpublished court of appeals decision;  case activity

Sahs, on probation for child pornography, admitted to his probation agent that he again possessed child pornography. He was charged based on evidence seized as a result of his admission. He sought to suppress the evidence, claiming his admissions were compelled by the threat of revocation if he didn’t give his agent a true and accurate account of his activities. 

Genovevo Salinas v. Texas, USSC No. 12-246, 6/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

Consistent with the rule applied to a defendant’s silence after being informed of his Miranda rights, the Supreme Court holds that a suspect who is being questioned before he was arrested and read Miranda does not invoke his right against self-incrimination by merely staying quiet in response to police questioning.

Allen Ryan Alleyne v. United States, USSC No. 11-9335, 6/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding United States v. Alleyne, No. 11-4208 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)

Since Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a defendant has had the right to demand the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the maximum sentence for a crime.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review)

Should this Court accept review to examine when law enforcement can electronically track a cell phone in order to locate the phone’s user?

More specifically, should this Court review a) whether obtaining a cell phone’s location constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, b) if so,

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point):

If the Department of Corrections erroneously issues a probationer a discharge certificate under 973.o9(5) before the probationary term expired, but later discovers the error and proceeds to revoke the probationer, did the Department lose jurisdiction over the probationer?

If the Department retained jurisdiction over the probationer, is it equitably estopped from revoking him for conduct occurring before the probationary term expired?