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
Frisk of Automobile – Generally
State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15 For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶23 In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), and Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the United States Supreme Court applied the principles of Terry to the validity of protective searches executed during a roadside stop. In Mimms, […]
Expectation of Privacy – Automobile: (Non-Owner) Driver – “Standing” to Challenge Search of Car
State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53 For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Bruski did not establish an expectation of privacy in the automobile from which evidence was seized, where his only connection to the automobile was that he had passed out in it; further, he did not know […]
Expectation of Privacy – Generally: In Relation to Area Searched
State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53 For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶23 Whether an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area subjected to a search depends on two prongs. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979); Dixon, 177 Wis. 2d at 468. First, whether the […]
Expectation of Privacy – Generally: Proof of (and: “Standing” Contrasted)
State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53 For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 …Bruski, as the proponent of a motion to suppress, has the burden of establishing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, […]
Consent — Acquiescence – Response to Stated Intent to Search
State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15 For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Johnson’s statement, “I don’t have a problem with that,” made in response to an officer’s assertion that they were “going to search the vehicle” was voluntary consent or mere acquiescence. Holding: ¶19 As the record […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Fair and Just Reason” Standard – Generally
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28 For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶31 A “fair and just reason” has never been precisely defined. State v. Shimek, 230 Wis. 2d 730, 739, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999). Indeed, the fair and just reason standard “lack[s] any pretense of […]
Interstate Agreement on Detainers – Inapplicable to SVP Commitment Following Return under IAD to Serve Criminal Sentence
State ex rel Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, affirming 2005 WI App 215 For Pharm: Jon G. Furlow, Nia Enemuch-Trammell,Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono) Issue: Whether, following Pharm’s release in another state prison on life-time parole and his return here under the IAD to serve a Wisconsin sentence, he was subject to ch. 980 commitment […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Intersection with Factual Basis
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Failure to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea triggers Bangert procedure, ¶¶56-59, citing State v. Monika Lackershire, 2007 WI 74. In this instance (because of a last-minute inclusion of a ptac theory […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Colloquy, Generally
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea: ¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by […]
Excited Utterance – Report of Robbery/Battery
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶54 We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter […]
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.