On Point

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas: John M. Carroll; case activity

Traffic Stop – Duration 

¶8        Thomas argues Schellinger lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop because the only fact supporting Schellinger’s belief that Thomas was operating while intoxicated was the odor of intoxicants.  Thomas asserts the odor of intoxicants does not, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion that a driver is operating while intoxicated.  

State v. Jason T. Moynihan, 2011AP2858-CR, District 2, 5/30/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Moynihan: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶8        In this case, the deputy pulled over the vehicle driven by Moynihan because he believed it was being driven by Saeger and believed that Saeger’s driver’s license was revoked.  The question is whether the deputy’s belief, or suspicion, was reasonable.  

State v. Douglas Meier Williams, 2012 WI 59, on review of court of appeals certification request; for Williams:  Stephen P. Hurley, Dean A. Strang, Marcus J. Berghahn, Jonas B. Bednarek; case activity

Wis. Stat. § 757.69(1)(b), giving circuit court commissioners authority to issue search warrants, is constitutional.

¶3   Throughout Wisconsin’s history, including before the ratification of the Wisconsin Constitution, non-judges have been authorized by statute to issue search warrants.  

Coleman v. Lorenzo Johnson, USSC No. 11-1053, 5/29/12 (per curiam), reversing 446 Fed. Appx. 531 (3rd Cir. 2011)

We have made clear that Jackson claims face a high bar in federal habeas proceedings because they are subject to two layers of judicial deference. First, on direct appeal, “it is the responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial.

Now that the 2011-12 Legislative session has ended and all pending bills have been acted on by the Governor, I wanted to offer a brief list of the greatest hits in new legislation.

2011 Wisconsin Act 2 – Tort Reform

• Sections 33-38 of Act 2 apply the federal Daubert rules regarding expert witnesses.
• Act 2 took effect onFebruary 1, 2011.

2011 Wisconsin Act 38 – Repeal Earned Release

• Act 38 repealed the provisions in 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 that created an Earned Release program for inmates.

Alex Blueford v. Arkansas, USSC No. 10-1320, 5/24/12, affirming 2011 Ark. 8

Double Jeopardy doesn’t bar retrial on greater offenses, despite jury foreperson’s report of unanimous votes against those charges, after ensuing deadlock resulted in mistrial.

Blueford’s primary submission is that he cannot be retried for capital and first-degree murder because the jury actually acquitted him of those offenses. See Green v.

State v. Susan C. Macho, 2011AP1841-CR, District 2, 5/23/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Macho: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

¶8        In this case, Edwards’ actions in pulling up behind Macho and shining his spotlight into her car did not amount to a “show of authority sufficient to effect a seizure.”  Young, 294 Wis. 2d 1, ¶65 n.18.  

State v. Laurence W. Tucker, 2012 WI App 67 (recommended for publication); for Tucker: Robert T. Ruth; case activity

Tucker pleaded guilty pursuant to plea bargain, which terms included continuation of his release on bond and compliance with same. After Tucker failed to appear at sentencing, necessitating his arrest on a bench warrant and issuance of a new charge of bail jumping, the State informed counsel it was no longer bound by the agreement,

State v. James Ralph Whitwell, 2011AP1342-CR, District 3/4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Whitwell: Jefren E. Olsen, Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Whitwell challenges a warrantless blood draw, on related grounds: he objected at the time, informing officials that he suffered from a medical condition that made the draw dangerous absent certain precautionary measures; this objection to the draw was objectively reasonable. 

State v. Mary Alice Gentry, 2012AP59-CR, District 4, 5/24/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Gentry: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶6        A traffic stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure.  State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶24, 274 Wis.