On Point

State v. David M. Larsen, 2007 WI App 147, PFR filed 5/31/07
For Larsen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18 The parties express some confusion over whether an officer’s subjective motivations are relevant in determining whether his or her actions violate the Fourth Amendment in emergency doctrine matters. Recent cases from our supreme court and the United States Supreme Court clarify that whether a warrantless home entry is justified based on the need to render assistance or prevent harm is judged by an objective test. 

State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay

Issue: Given that, as charged, the offense required soliciting “sexual intercourse” (which in turn is defined as “vulvar penetration”), whether the statement “that he was looking for sex and he wanted me to masturbate and that he wanted to watch” is sufficient to support conviction.

Holding:

¶7        Although Turnpaugh said he was “looking for sex,” he limited the scope of that phrase by describing >what he was willing to pay for—watching Ferguson masturbate.

State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay

Issue/Holding: Reversal of the conviction for the crime on which the bail-jumping “was premised” also requires reversal of the bail-jumping conviction, ¶8.

This isn’t to say that bail-jumping requires >conviction on the underlying offense, see, e.g., State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29      Lackershire’s second argument centers on the somewhat unique posture of this case. A violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) is generally viewed as a strict liability offense. Unlike other sexual assault offenses, where consent of the victim may be a central issue,

State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07
For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: The remedy for violation of the § 948.025(3) prohibition on charging multiple offenses in the same proceeding is limited to dismissal of the charges (not new trial):

¶26   … Wisconsin Stat. § 948.025(3) simply prohibits the State from charging certain enumerated offenses in the same action as a violation of § 948.025.

State v. Shawn B. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232
For Ebersold: Lester A. Pines

Issue: Whether message sent via Internet chat room supports prosecution for § 948.11(2)(am), verbally communicating harmful material to child.

Holding:

¶9    In this case, the parties dispute whether Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) prohibits communication of a harmful description or narrative account to a child via an Internet chat message.

State v. Pdero L. Nieves, 2007 WI App 189, PFR filed 7/6/07
For Nieves: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding:

¶13 We conclude that probable cause to arrest for obstruction existed. An accumulation of factors contributed to Olsen’s suspicion that “Anthony Otero” was a false name which, in turn, led to the search. Olsen had been maintaining surveillance on a known drug house and a vehicle bearing plates registered to a known drug dealer’s vehicle.

State v. Pedro L. Nieves, 2007 WI App 189, PFR filed 7/6/07
For Nieves: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding:

¶9 For purposes of this appeal, the propriety of the initial traffic stop is not challenged. Rather, Nieves argues that he should not have been arrested for his “innocuous seatbelt violation.” He was not. Indeed, Wis. Stat. § 347.48(2m)(gm) expressly forbids an arrest based solely on a seatbelt violation.

State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed on different ground, 2008 WI 85
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Police lacked probable cause to arrest for a drug offense under the following circumstances:

¶15 At the time the officers pursued Sanders into his home, the officers knew that the residence was located in an area known for drug trafficking and that Sanders was holding in his hands folded-up money and a canister that appeared to be of the type typically used to transport drugs.

State v. David M. Larsen, 2007 WI App 147, PFR filed 5/31/07
For Larsen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the emergency doctrine supports warrantless entry of a residence not merely to look for the victim but also to search for evidence that would lead to her location.

Holding:

¶22 Larsen next contends that even if the emergency doctrine justified a search for the children,