On Point

Marathon County v. T.R.H., 2022AP1394, 3/14/23, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Counties often seek recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.c, the third standard of dangerousness. It is the easiest standard to satisfy–especially at the recommitment stage. But not this time. The court of appeals held that the county can’t just offer testimony that, at some point in the past, the person failed to care for himself, experienced delusions, and struggled with social interactions when not on medication.  The county’s evidence must be more specific.

Brown County v. J.J., 2021AP1079, District 3, 3/7/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Before an Indian child subject to a CHIPS proceeding is placed out of the home of his or her parent or Indian guardian, § 48.028(4)(d)2. and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) both require, among other things, proof by clear and convincing evidence that “active efforts, as described in [§ 48.028(4)](g) 1., have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian child’s family and that those efforts have proved unsuccessful.” The court finds the County proved it made “active efforts” in this case.

State v. Linsey Nichole Howard, 2022AP1608-CR, District 2, 03/08/2023, (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication) case activity

Prior to pleading guilty to operating a vehicle with a restricted, controlled substance as a second offense, Howard filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. The court of appeals affirms the denial of Howard’s motion based on the following circumstances: (1) she was driving at 12:53 a.m. without headlights on, (2) she was confused about where she was coming from and where she was going, (3) she appeared nervous, (4) she avoided eye contact, and (5) she failed the HGN field sobriety test (4) . (Opinion, ¶11).

Milwaukee County v. D.H., 2022AP1402, 3/7/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

To obtain an involuntary medication order, a county must satisfy the multi-step test for incompetency to make medication decisions in §51.61(1)(g)4. The first step requires the county to prove that the person received a “reasonable explanation” of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication. The examiner can’t just testify that she complied with the statute. She must tell the court what she told the person about the medication. In “Dan’s” case, the court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order because the county failed this step.

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2023 WI 9, 2/21/23, affirming a published court of appeals decision; 2020AP32; case activity (including briefs)

As on quite a few previous occasions, our high court has issued a decision without a single majority one can cite for the holdings on each issue presented. Unlike on some of those occasions, this time the lead opinion does not purport to make law it cannot make; it instead signposts which opinion is law for which issue. The upshot of all this writing and signposting, though, is that the court affirms the published court of appeals decision on more or less identical-and well-trodden–legal grounds.

State v. Brooke K. Eder, 2021AP485, 2/28/23, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Officers got a warrant to arrest one Estes. The warrant permitted them to search Eder’s apartment for Estes; the affidavit gave various reasons to believe that Estes would be there. Estes was there, and they arrested him. After they arrested him, though, they searched the basement of the three-unit building. You can’t do that! “A search may not be continued after the objects identified in the search warrant have been located and seized.” State v. Starke, 81 Wis. 2d 399, 414, 260 N.W.2d 739 (1978). This unlawful search turned up contraband that led police to get a new warrant to search Eder’s apartment; Eder seeks to suppress the evidence found in this second search on the ground that it was the fruit of the basement search.

Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17; case activity

Unfortunately, the court of appeals just turned Chapter 51 upside down in a published opinion. It holds that counties must move examiners’ reports into evidence at recommitment hearings, but not at initial commitment hearings. This appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary medication order entered following an initial commitment. The court of appeals held that the doctor’s testimony was insufficient to support the order, but the doctor’s report, which was not moved into evidence, filled the gaps. It thus affirmed the med order.

State Public Defender attorneys and practice group coordinators sometimes field recurring questions about a point of law or a problem popping up in cases around the state. So we at On Point are experimenting with FAQ posts. From time to time we will post a FAQ along with an answer. If you encounter the issue […]

Mandatory Circuit Court Form CR-206 suggests that in a criminal case the circuit court may order involuntary medication for an incompetent defendant because he is dangerous. Is the form correct? No, under the current state of federal and Wisconsin law, a criminal court may not order the involuntary administration of antipsychotic for an incompetent defendant based on dangerousness.

State v. Debra L. Rippentrop & Steven E. Rippentrop, 2023 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs) 2022AP92-CR and 2022AP93-CR

The nonprosecution agreement the Rippentrops made with the state doesn’t violate public policy and is therefore enforceable, and that requires the criminal charges filed against them to be dismissed with prejudice.