On Point

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue: Whether the action of a police officer in opening a letter misaddressed to the officer’s residence from a House of Correction inmate was private and therefore outside fourth amendment scrutiny.

Holding:

¶13   There appears to be no Wisconsin case addressing the issue when an off-duty law enforcement officer acts in a private capacity rather than as a government agent for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the person whose documents were produced by a bank pursuant to subpoena has standing to seek suppression of the documents.

Holding:

¶24 A person has standing to seek judicial intervention when that person has “a personal stake in the outcome” 

State v. Ellen T. Straehler, 2008 WI App 14
For Straehler: Daniel P. Fay

Issue: Whether suppression is a remedy for violation of health care privacy laws (HIPAA; § 146.82).

Holding1:

¶10      Straehler’s argument does not carry for a number of reasons. First, Straehler ignores the fact that HIPAA is limited in its scope and applicability. Investigating authorities, i.e., police officers, are not among the “covered entities” expressly subject to HIPPA.

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶30 The State concedes, and properly so, that contrary to the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 968.135 no showing of probable cause was made to the circuit court before the circuit court issued the subpoenas.

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.

State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118)
Pro se

Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4:

We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the production of his witnesses at the John Doe hearing,

State v. Eugene D. Rhodes, 2008 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/15/08
For Rhodes: Joseph E. Redding

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s “forceful” advice that defendant enter a guilty plea wasn’t in and of itself a “fair and just” reason sufficient to require pre-sentencing grant of a motion to withdraw the plea:

¶11      Rhodes proffers his attorney’s “forceful advice” as the coercion present here. We reject such a contention.

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a plea colloquy that merely established that the defendant was “satisfied” he understood “everything in the questionnaire and waiver of rights and the elements of the charges” sufficed under State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.  2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), given that the questionnaire covered these matters.

State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3
For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42.

All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a lengthy analysis that won’t be summarized.) Of particular note,

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,