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.
Traffic Arrest – Probable Cause – Crossing Median
Village of Whitefish Bay v. David W. Czirr, No. 2010AP92, District I, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Czirr: Rex Anderegg; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Driving across median, even for very brief period of time, establishes probable cause to arrest for traffic offense:
¶14 Next, Czirr does not specifically argue that momentarily being on top of the median cannot constitute a violation of WIS.
Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Suppression Motion
John Ebert v. Gaetz, 7th Circuit No. 09-1627, 6/23/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision
When the ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, as it is here, the defendant must also prove “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v.
Habeas: After Resentencing, Petition Challenging New Sentence Treated as 1st, not 2nd or Successive, Petition
Magwood v. Patterson, USSC No. 09-158, 6/24/10
After a defendant has been resentenced in state court pursuant to relief granted on a federal habeas petition, a second federal habeas petition challenging the new sentence will be treated as a first petition (vs. a “2nd or successive” petition), even if raising grounds that could have been raised in the original petition.
We have described the phrase “second or successive” as a “term of art.” Id.,
Prosecutorial Failure to Disclose Evidence; Deficient Performance – Failure to Suppress Showup
State v. Melvin G. Walton, No. 2009AP001304-CR, District I, 6/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Walton: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Prosecutorial Failure to Disclose Evidence
¶28 The State has two separate evidence-disclosure responsibilities: a statutory responsibility imposed by WIS. STAT. § 971.23 and a constitutional responsibility imposed by Brady v. Maryland,
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Minor Traffic Stop – Passenger (Various Factors, Including Nervousness, High-Crime Area)
State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The following factors did not add up to reasonable suspicion supporting the frisk of a passenger during a routine traffic stop (¶17):
(1) The officer testified that he “didn’t feel any particular threat before searching” the defendant.
(2) The defendant,
Posting Hiatus
“de minimis non curat lex”
On Point will be out of commission until 6/28. Mr. Badger has kindly consented to waive copyright protection in the interim, after which he returns to well-earned obscurity.
Exigency – Answering Incoming Call, Lawfully Seized Cell Phone Image Supported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Answering call on lawfully seized cell phone proper, given existence of “probable cause to believe that the cell phone was a tool used in drug trafficking,” plus exigent circumstances (danger of evidence destruction), ¶¶35-42.
Probable cause, of course, is typically fact-specific and in that sense the court’s discussion (¶¶25-29) is mundane.
Exigency – Browsing through Image Gallery of Lawfully Cell Phone Unsupported
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161
For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances did not support browsing through image gallery of lawfully seized cell phone: “That data was not in immediate danger of disappearing before Belsha could obtain a warrant,” ¶33.
The court of appeals had merely assumed that such browsing was improper on the facts,
David Hanson v. Dane Co., Wis., 7th Cir. No. 09-1759, 6/15/10
7th circuit court of appeals decision
Warrantless Entry – Emergency Doctrine – 911 Call
According to David, the police violated the fourth amendment by entering without probable cause and refusing to leave as soon as Karen asked them to go. Like the district judge, we think that a 911 call provides probable cause for entry, if a call back goes unanswered. The 911 line is supposed to be used for emergencies only.
Daniel W. Wilson v. Gaetz, 7th Cir No. 09-2111, 6/17/10
seventh circuit court of appeals decision
Ineffective Assistance – NGI Defense – Habeas Review
Counsel performed deficiently by failing to: adequately prep his NGI expert witness, who had performed only a competency evaluation of Wilson and wasn’t given the opportunity for a reinterview with the distinct purpose of an NGI evaluation; present testimony of family members familiar with Wilson’s mental deterioration; and retain another expert.
Given the gravity of the charge against Wilson and the ample evidence that he was driven to kill Fischer by an insane delusion,
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.