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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Sentencing – Boot Camp (CIP), Generally
State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶9 Commonly referred to as “boot camp,” the CIP is governed by Wis. Stat. § 302.045, which provides that “the [DOC] shall provide a challenge incarceration program for inmates selected to participate” after meeting the eligibility requirements for the program. Sec. 302.045(1). … ¶10 […]
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Stalking
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92 For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr. Issue/Holding: A search warrant for seizure of the sorts of items Sveum used or kept in connection with a 1996 stalking conviction established probable cause he was keeping such items in 2003: ¶35 The […]
Search Warrants – Probable Cause – Statements of Unnamed, Unwitting Participant in Transaction
State v. Jaime Romero, 2009 WI 32, reversing unpublished opinion For Romero: Thomas E. Hayes Issue/Holding: Search warrant affidavit, based in part on incriminatory statements of “unwitting” informant (“Mr. X”), established probable cause: ¶29 In the instant case a confidential informant told a law enforcement officer what someone else had told him. In such a case, the veracity […]
Search Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92 For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶40 Sveum’s particularity argument is that the many items authorized for seizure were so “non-specific” that the warrant was an invalid general warrant. Police were authorized to seize phone bills, journals, calendars, logs, computers […]
WESCL, §§ 968.31(2)(b) and (c) – GPS Device not Covered
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92 For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr. Issue/Holding: The Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law excludes from coverage “(a)ny communication from a tracking device,” § 968.27(4)(d); a GPS device is such a “tracking device” and, therefore excluded from WESCL coverage.
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – One-Party Consent Exception, Generally
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09 For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 The one-party consent exception reads as follows: (2) It is not unlawful …:…. (b) For a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where the person is a party […]
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – One-Party Consent Exception – Law Enforcement Officer as Consenting Party
State v. John David Ohlinger, 2009 WI App 44, PFR filed 4/1/09 For Ohlinger: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether, for purposes of authorizing one-party consent under WESCL, “a person acting under color of law” may be a law enforcement officer. Holding: ¶2 [H]e contends that Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(b), commonly referred to as the one-party consent […]
“Forfeiture” (Compared to “Waiver”) of Right to Public Trial
State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268 For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser Issue/Holding: (Generally:) ¶29 Although cases sometimes use the words “forfeiture” and “waiver” interchangeably, the two words embody very different legal concepts. “Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the […]
Public Trial – Test for Closure, Generally and with Respect to Defendant’s Family
State v. Dhosi J. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, affirming 2007 WI App 268 For Ndina: Richard L. Kaiser Issue/Holding1: Closure of the courtroom to numerous members of defendant’s family during witness testimony implicated the right to public trial: ¶51 Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that pursuant to the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, “an […]
Conspiracy, § 939.31 – Impossibility of Fulfilling Objective
State v. Garrett L. Huff, 2009 WI App 92, PFR filed 6/3/09 For Huff: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue/Holding: Impossibility of fulfilling goal of conspiracy (here: election bribery, where other “conspirators” were undercover officers ineligible to vote) doesn’t preclude conviction, given Wisconsin’s recognition of “unilateral” conspiracies, State v. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d 487, 573 N.W.2d 187 (1998): ¶11 … Thus, […]
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.