On Point

State v. Laurence Evan Olson, 2010AP149-CR, District 4, 8/5/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Olson: Christopher W. Dyer; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶11      WISCONSIN STAT. § 347.13(1) provides that “[n]o vehicle originally equipped at the time of manufacture and sale with 2 tail lamps shall be operated on a highway during hours of darkness unless both such lamps are in good working order.” WISCONSIN STAT. 

State v. Theresa E. Palubicki, No. 2010AP555-CR, District 3

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Palubicki: Michael D. Petersen; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The burden of proving setoff rests with the defendant. Although Palubicki reached a settlement agreement with the hit-and-run victim, she did not meet her burden of proving that the agreement covered lost wages, therefore she is liable for them in restitution.

publication orders, 7/28/10

On Point posts from this list:

2010 WI App 93 State v. Timothy Charles Bauer

State v. Eric Michael Webley, No. 2010AP747-CR, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Webley: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.

The police had reasonable suspicion believe Webley was driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.02, and thus to perform field sobriety tests, after an indisputably proper stop for speeding, given the following (in addition to which, Webley admitted having had two beers):

¶8 … 

State v. Kevin A. Rhyne, No. 2009AP163, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.

¶7        “An officer may conduct a traffic stop when he or she has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶13, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569 (citing State v.

Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti

TPR – Evidence

Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Voeller: Steven G. Richards; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Counsel – Sanction – Appendix

¶9 n. 3:

Contrary to the State’s certification, the appendix does not include the trial court’s findings or opinion. The transcript of the oral findings and opinion should have been included in the appendix.

certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp.; Reply

Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph

The court of appeals certifies to the supreme court the following question:

Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,

State v. Walter Allison, Jr., 2010 WI App 103; for Allison: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Summary judgment in favor of discharge isn’t an available option under § 980.09.

¶18 Applying the principles governing statutory interpretation to Wis. Stat. § 980.09, it is clear that the legislature explicitly prescribed a different procedure from those outlined in Wis.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brock: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Statement – Coercion

Threatened action against defendant’s girlfriend didn’t support suppression of his resulting statement:

¶11 Brock argues that Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963), requires suppression of his statement. Lynumn held that threats that a mother’s children would be taken away from her unless she “cooperated” “must be deemed not voluntary,