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.
Warrantless search of home was not justified under community caretaker doctrine
State v. Dyllon A. Maddix, 2013 WI App 64; case activity
The warrantless search of an apartment by police who responded to a domestic disturbance call was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine:
¶37 …. Under the facts of this case, after the officers validly exercised the community caretaker function by entering the apartment, addressing the apparent domestic situation, and making a reasonable assessment of the need for any further assistance or protection,
State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2011AP2905-CR, petition for review granted, 4/18/13
Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the circuit court’s answer to a question posed by the jury during deliberations allow the jury to base its verdict on speculation and conjecture?
Because petitions for review are not available on the court’s website, the issue statement was composed based on the court of appeals’ decision and the parties briefs.
US Supreme Court: Natural dissipation of alcohol does not establish a per se exigency sufficient by itself to justify a warrantless blood draw
Missouri v. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, 4/17/13
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012)
In a decision that works a major change in Wisconsin law governing nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws in OWI cases, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the evanescent quality of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream does not in and of itself create an exigent circumstance:
The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.
Automobile exception to warrant requirement — probable cause to search for open intoxicants
State v. Kenneth F. Johnston, 2012AP2427-CR, District 3, 4/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The search of Johnston’s car was supported by probable cause to believe there were open intoxicants in the car:
¶17 In this case, before [Officer] Wojcik searched the vehicle for open intoxicants, Wojcik smelled the odor of intoxicants emanating from the driver-side door. Wojcik knew, based on Johnston’s preliminary breath test,
OWI — the penalty language of § 346.65(2)(am)6. does not require the court to impose a bifurcated sentence
State v. Clayton W. Williams, 2013 WI App 74, petition for review granted 11/21/13; reversed, 2014 WI 64, 7/15/14; case activity
Wisconsin Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)6. makes OWI 7th, 8th, or 9th a Class G felony, but also provides that “[t]he confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence imposed on the person under s. 973.01 shall be not less than 3 years.”
First Amendment — Speech — “True Threats.” Stalking and extortion — sufficiency of the evidence
State v. James D. Hills, 2012AP1901-CR, District 4, 4/11/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Hills sent letters and made at least one phone call to an assistant city attorney (ACA) who, he believed, had wrongfully prosecuted him under the city’s disorderly conduct ordinance. In those communications he berated the ACA (calling her incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, deceitful, worthless, and worse), accused her of prosecuting him with perjured testimony so she could collect money for the city,
Terry stop — reasonableness of length of detention. Arrest — probable cause. Newly discovered evidence. Ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2012AP523-CR, District 1, 4/9/13, court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 2/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 132; case activity
Terry stop — reasonableness of length of detention; arrest –probable cause
Kennedy was the driver of a car that struck a pedestrian. (¶¶3-5). After about 30 minutes on the scene investigating the incident,
TPR — consent to termination; voluntariness
Florence County DHS v. Jennifer B., 2012AP2314, 2012AP2315, and 2012AP2316, District 3, 4/9/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: 2012AP2314; 2012AP2315; 2012AP2316
Jennifer’s consent to terminate her parental rights to her older children was knowing and voluntary despite the fact she received “advice” from numerous people that consenting to termination for those children might help her get back her youngest child who was in foster care in Michigan.
Jury instruction — erroneously instructing jury that defendant in forfeiture case is presumed innocent
City of West Allis v. Robert C. Braun, 2012AP1199, District 1, 4/9/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court erroneously instructed the jury in a municipal forfeiture case that the defendant was presumed innocent, and the City is therefore entitled to a new trial:
¶12 Here, the circuit court seemed to combine both instructions [Wis. J.I.-Criminal 140 and 140A] by informing the jury that Braun was presumed innocent and that the City had the burden of proving,
Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects argument that Miranda protections apply when custody is “imminent”
State v. Matthew A. Lonkoski, 2013 WI 30, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
About 30 minutes into being questioned by police about the death of his daughter, Matthew Lonkoski said he wanted a lawyer. (¶12). Under Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), the invocation of the right to counsel would mean the police had to cease interrogation unless Lonkoski reinitiated the interview.
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.