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.
“Knock-and-Talk” – Seizure
County of Calumet v. Daniel A. Ryan, 2011AP490, District 2, 12/14/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ryan: John M. Carroll; case activity
Officers, investigating a one-car accident, approached Ryan’s home, knocked on his door and “(a)fter several minutes of ‘back and forth,’ Ryan came out of his residence” (admittedly “voluntarily”). Subsequent testing revealed him to be intoxicated and he was convicted of OWI.
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop (OWI)
State v. Brian S. Wold, 2011AP1518-CR, District 2, 12/14/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wold: Patrick A. Dewane, Jr.; case activity
Report from a named, citizen informant that a particular vehicle was “driving all over the roadway” was sufficiently reliable to support traffic stop for OWI, even though after spotting the vehicle, the officer followed it for a mile without himself observing any traffic violations.
State v. Randy L. Martin, 2010AP505-CR, rev. granted 12/13/11
on review of unpublished decision; for Martin: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; prior post
Miranda – “Interrogation”
Issue (composed by On Point):
Whether an exchange between Martin and an officer was the functional equivalent of “interrogation” so as to require interrogation.
The facts, very briefly, as taken from the court of appeals’ decision: Martin was under arrest for DC when an officer fished a gun out of his car.
Traffic Stop – Reasonable Suspicion
State v. Todd A. Schreiber, 2011AP1191-CR, District 1, 12/13/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schreiber: Dustin C. Haskell, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Lane deviations provided reasonable suspicion for traffic stop.
¶9 In applying these standards, we agree with the circuit court that Grunwald had sufficient reasonable suspicion to stop Schreiber. Grunwald testified that he had five years of experience patrolling roads,
CCW, § 941.23 – Facially Constitutional
State v. Tiffany Michelle Flowers, 2011AP1757-CR, District 1, 12/13/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Flowers: Daniel A. Necci; case activity
Conviction for carrying a concealed weapon (gun in a purse, in a car), § 941.23, upheld against second amendment challenge to facial validity. Court rejects strict scrutiny test. (The statute was amended by 2011 Wis. Act 35, §§ 50-55, to allow among other things conceal-carry for licensees;
Search Warrant – “Order”; Search Warrant – Return; Search Warrant – No-Knock Entry
State v. William A. Grantham, 2010AP2693-CR, District 3, 12/13/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Grantham: Peter C. Rotter; case activity
Search warrant, for thermal imaging device use against residence, passes muster even if labeled “order.”
¶5 Grantham acknowledges that our supreme court has concluded, “An order meeting the parameters of a search warrant set out in [Wis. Stat. § 968.12(1)][2] is a statutorily authorized warrant,
Habeas Review – Confrontation – Admissibility of Prior Testimony, Showing of Witness Unavailability
Hardy v. Irving L. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11, reversing Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666
The Seventh Circuit grant of habeas relief, on the ground “the state failed to demonstrate that it employed good faith efforts to locate the complainant” before declaring her “unavailable” and allowing her prior testimony to be read to the jury, is reversed:
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 (AEDPA),
OWI Enhancer – Collateral Attack
State v. Jason L. Decorah, 2011AP662-CR, District 4, 12/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Decorah: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity
Collateral attack on a prior OWI used as a current enhancer, on the ground Decorah didn’t understand the range of penalties therefore didn’t validly waive counsel. Decorah prevailed below, and the court affirms on this State’s appeal:
¶3 Decorah’s collateral attack is based on his contention that,
TPR – Directed Verdict, Grounds – Abandonment
Dane Co. DHS v. Lee H., 2011AP1138, District 4, 12/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lee H.: Theresa J. Schmieder; case activity
The trial court did not err in directing answers to special verdict questions with respect to two elements of grounds for terminating parental rights (existence of order containing TPR notice placing the child outside the parent’s home; failure to visit or communicate with child 3 months or longer).
Traffic Stop – Duration
State v. John R. Nelson, 2011AP125-CR, District 2, 12/7/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nelson: John A. Nelson; case activity
The officer’s observation that Nelson’s vehicle intruded “somewhat into the intersection” before stopping provided reasonable suspicion for a stop-sign violation, § 346.46(1). The stop wasn’t unnecessarily prolonged by summoning a drug dog while the officer ran record checks and issued a warning ticket.
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.