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.
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, […]
Expectation of Privacy – Mail – Fictitous Addressee
State v. Dwan J. Earl, 2009 WI App 99 For Earl: Mark D. Richards, Christy Marie Hall Issue/Holding: Earl did not satisfy the “initial minimal burden of establishing some reasonable expectation of privacy” in a package addressed to a fictitious recipient at a vacant residence; moreover, when Earl picked up the package from the driver he […]
Expectation of Privacy – Mail, Generally
State v. Dwan J. Earl, 2009 WI App 99 For Earl: Mark D. Richards, Christy Marie Hall Issue/Holding: ¶9 Sealed packages sent through the mail are entitled to full protection under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114 (1984). In order to challenge a warrantless search or seizure, one must show a […]
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Routine Traffic Stop
State v. Melvin Bridges, 2009 WI 66, PFR filed 5/18/09 For Bridges: Michael S. Holzman Issue/Holding: Frisk of Bridges during routine traffic stop (defective brake lights) upheld, where the early-evening stop was in an area “where the police had received numerous complaints of gunshots fired at night,” and Bridges when pulled over had made “a questionable movement”; State v. […]
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.