On Point

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Immaterial differences of memory don’t establish the “deliberate falsity or reckless disregard” for truth required to trigger a Franks hearing, ¶¶17-21; nor is such a hearing mandated in the absence of specific request, ¶22.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146

Issue/Holding:

¶26 The trial court here did not find a nexus in the affidavit between the items sought and the house to be searched. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded, in deference to the judge who signed the warrant, that “[t]here’s the good faith exception here. If I were confronted with this affidavit, I think I would have issued the warrant.”

¶27 … “Good faith” is not a doctrine that absolves the neutral and detached judge or magistrate from a careful,

State v. Quantae T. Hines, 2007 WI App 39
For Hines: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a right to allocute during a reconfinement proceeding, the remedy for violation of which is resentencing, ¶¶18-20.

The outcome is largely controlled by State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, which held that reconfinement is essentially a sentencing proceeding.

State v. Kathy J. Johnson, 2007 WI App 41
For Johnson: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether DOC policy, for inmates under sentence commencing prior to July 26, 2003, to take no position on an ERP petition constitutes approval of the petition under Wis. Stat. § 302.05(3)(e).

Holding:

¶8        Wisconsin Stat. § 302.05(3)(e) governs inmate petitions for the determination of eligibility for the ERP for inmates sentenced prior to the effective date of § 302.05, 

State v. Thomas William Brady, 2007 WI App 33, PFR filed 2/13/07
For Brady: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the target of a search was not at home when the police forcibly entered pursuant to a search warrant, their unannounced entry did not, although not authorized by the warrant, violate the fourth amendment.

¶13   The first consideration is the safety of the police and others.

State v. Dennis M. Gralinski, 2007 WI App 233
For Gralinski: Martin Kohler; Craig Powell, PFR filed 10/5/07

Issue: Whether use of the defendant’s credit card number to purchase online membership to a child pornography site established probable cause for a search warrant of the defendant’s home.

Holding:

 ¶12     Gralinski argues that the special agent’s affidavit did not demonstrate probable cause for searching his home.

State v. Christopher D. Sloan, 2007 WI App 146
For Sloan: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: There was an insufficiently established “nexus” between the contraband found in a package and its return address to support a search warrant for that address:

¶31 What Hennen does not describe in his affidavit is critical to our analysis. He never tells the reader that he believes Sloan is,

State v. Dennis M. Gralinski, 2007 WI App 233
For Gralinski: Martin Kohler; Craig Powell, PFR filed 10/5/07

Issue/Holding:

¶26      Gralinski next contends that the warrant was invalid because it was based on stale information such that no inference could be drawn that the items sought in the warrant would be located in his home two and one-half years after the membership to the Regpay website was purchased.

State v. Jeffrey Allen House, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For House: Michael J. Steinle

Issue/Holding1:¶

¶12      House contends that because money laundering, racketeering, and continuing criminal enterprise are not specifically enumerated crimes for which wiretaps are authorized under the Wisconsin wiretap statutes, the order authorizing the wiretap in this case was unlawful. We begin our analysis by examining the words of Wisconsin’s wiretap statute,

State v. David L. Vanness, 2007 WI App 195
For Vanness: Chad Lanning

Issue/Holding: Right to public trial under the 6th amendment was violated when the courthouse was locked (though the courtroom doors themselves remained open) during the defense case and State’s rebuttal:

¶8 The right to a public trial is a basic tenet of our judicial system, Walton v. Briley, 361 F.3d 431,