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.
Payton v. New York Violation (Unlawful Entry of Residence, but with Probable Cause) and New York v. Harris Attenuation Doctrine
State v. Devin W. Felix, 2012 WI 36, reversing unpublished decision; for Felix: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
Under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), warrantless arrest following nonconsensual entry of a home is illegal unless supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. However, New York v. Harris,
Strip Search – Detainee – Jail Policy
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al., USSC No. 10-945, 4/2/12, affirming 621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir. 2010)
A jail policy requiring that every detainee who will be admitted to the facility’s general population may be required to undergo close visual inspection while undressed is reasonable under the fourth amendment.
The question here is whether undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband.
Federal Sentencing Authority – Consecutive to State Sentence not Yet Imposed
Monroe Ace Setser v. U.S., USSC No. 10-7387, 3/28/12, affirming 607 F.3d 128 (5th Cir 2010)
District courts have authority to make a sentence for a federal offense consecutive to an anticipated, but not-yet imposed state sentence. Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. §3584, construed.
It is fundamental that we construe statutes governing the jurisdiction of the federal courts in light of “the common-law background against which the statutes .
Statutes – Construction – Presumption Against Retroactivity
Panagis Vartelas v. Holder, USSC No. 10-1211, 3/28/12, reversing, 620 F.3d 108 (2nd Cir. 2010)
Vartelas, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 1994 to an offense that under then-settled law didn’t hinder his ability to take brief trips abroad. Congress, however, subsequently enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“Act”), which did place his resident status at risk if he ever left the country.
Statutory Construction – “Shall” vs. “May”
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Insurance Company, 2012 WI 26; case activity
¶32 … The word “may” is ordinarily used to grant permission or to indicate possibility. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1112 (3d ed. 1992). Accordingly, when interpreting a statute, we generally construe the word “may” as permissive. Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 78 Wis. 2d 214, 220, 254 N.W.2d 230 (1977);
Appellate Jurisdiction – Final Order
Admiral Insurance Company v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 2012 WI 30; case activity
¶3 If we conclude that there is any ambiguity in an order or judgment about whether it disposes of the entire matter in litigation as to one or more of the parties, we will construe the ambiguity so as to preserve the right to appeal. …
…
¶26 We recently addressed what it means for a judgment or order to be final in Wambolt v.
Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Scott Walker, 2012AP557-LV, District 4/2, 2/28/12
court of appeals certification request; case activity
Voter ID Law
(From the Certification:)
There are many issues in this case, but this certification focuses on the following questions: (1) What level of judicial scrutiny should be employed in reviewing the plaintiffs’ challenge to the Act? (2) Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide greater protection to voting rights than is guaranteed under the United States Constitution?
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walker, 2012AP584, District 4, 3/28/12
court of appeals certification request; case activity
Voter ID Law
(From the Certification:)
This appeal challenges a circuit court order that permanently enjoined implementation of those portions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 requiring Wisconsin electors to display government-authorized photo identification either at the polling place or to election officials by the Friday following an election. The injunction was based upon the circuit court’s declaratory judgment that Act 23 violates article III,
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 3/12
court of appeals publication orders, 3/28/12
On Point posts from this list:
2012 WI App 33 State v. Sean T. Powell
2012 WI App 38 State v. Anthony C. Boyden
2012 WI App 39 State v. Terrence T. Boyd
Traffic Stop
State v. Michael E. Mings, 2011AP2467-CR, District 2, 3/28/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Mings: Daniel P. Fay, Erin Fay; case activity
¶12 Hallmark testified that he has completed many traffic stops in his three years as a police officer and that “most innocent public, motoring traffic, don’t usually pass … at that slow of speeds, especially when the lane is that wide and clear of traffic.” Hallmark explained that the vehicle conducting the initial traffic stop had pulled into a driveway and that Hallmark’s vehicle was in the parking lane on Tenny Avenue.
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.