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
Search Warrants – “Technical Irregularity,” § 968.22 – Accurate Identification of Target in Warrant Application but Inaccurate Description in Warrant Itself
State v. Eric Dwayne Rogers, 2008 WI App 176, PFR filed 12/12/08 For Rogers: Mark D. Richards Issue/Holding: Incorrect identification of automobile on face of warrant was mere technical irregularity based on “scrivener’s error”: ¶15 In this case, the executing officer had personal knowledge and the officer attached and incorporated a correct affidavit. The affidavit correctly identified […]
Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) – Construction, Generally – Relevance of Federal Decisions
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 Extrinsic sources include legislative history. Id. The drafting records of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law state that the law “represents Wisconsin implementation of the electronic surveillance portion of [Title III],” the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets […]
Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) — “Oral Communications” — No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy by School Bus Driver in Statements Recorded While Transporting Student
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether a school bus driver’s statements surreptitiously recorded by a voice-activated tape recorder in the student’s backpack were suppressible under WESCL. Holding: ¶2 The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Duchow’s tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as […]
Allocution, Victim’s – Prohibiting Defendant from Looking at Victim
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08 For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: ¶51 The trial court, having just heard a lengthy description of Payette’s violent and abusive conduct toward RS, directed that Payette not look at his victim during her statement to the court, because, the trial court […]
First Amendment – Overbreadth – “True Threat” – False Bomb Scare
State v. Robert T., 2008 WI App 22For Robert T.: Bradley J. Bloch Issue: Whether § 947.015 (2003-04) (“Bomb Scares”) is overbroad and therefore cannot support prosecution for a phoned-in but false bomb threat. Holding: ¶12 Robert T. argues that the statute suffers from overbreadth because it prohibits speech that could be protected. We disagree. Prior Wisconsin opinions […]
Expectation of Privacy — Public Rest Room
State v. Timothy L. Neitzel, 2008 WI App 143 For Neitzel: David A. Nelson Issue/Holding: Under the particular circumstances, the sole occupant of a locked, public restroom had no reasonable expectation of privacy given that he occupied the room for at least 25 minutes and then failed to respond to pounding on the door. The court […]
Plain View – Cell Phone, Image on Display Screen
State v. Jermichael James Carroll, 2010 WI 8, affirming 2008 WI App 161 For Carroll: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Displayed image on cell phone satisfied plain view doctrine (lawful position of officer, inadvertent discovery, probable cause to be images displayed contraband), ¶¶23-25.
Frisk – Generally – Type of Crime; Admitted Possession of Weapons; Reaching into Pockets
State v. Aaron E. Applewhite, 2008 WI App 138, PFR filed 9/19/08 For Applewhite: Pamela Moorshead Issue/Holding: Reasonable suspicion supported the frisk, given: the type of crime being investigated (residential burglary); the suspect’s admitted possession of, but initial reluctance to produce, two knives; and, his repeated reaching into his pants pockets, ¶¶3-11.
Frisk – Generally
State v. Nathaniel L. Sumner, 2008 WI 94, reversing unpublished opinion For Sumner: Craig Albee, Carol S. Josten Issue/Holding: ¶23 Our protective search or “frisk” jurisprudence has consistently emphasized that the totality of all circumstances present and known to the officer must be taken into account to assess the legality of the procedure. Naturally, some factors will be […]
Frisk of Automobile – Minor Traffic Violation — Reasonable Suspicion, Multiple Factors: Furtive Movements, High-Crime Area, et. al
State v. Clemente Lamont Alexander, 2008 WI App 9 For Alexander: Michael C. Demo Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to search the glove compartment of a car, stopped for a minor traffic violation (right turn on red without stopping), based on multiple factors: delay in pulling over, furtive movements, high-crime area, and post-stop observation […]
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.