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.
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Problem Area,” “Lingering” in Car
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The police had reasonable suspicion to stop Young because: he was in a parked car with Illinois plates, which had “lingered” for 5 or 10 minutes around midnight around the corner from a bar, in a “problem area”:
¶64 Although there are innocent explanations for why five people would be sitting in a car for five to 10 minutes,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Test: Failure to Yield to Authority
State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123
For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13 In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that “[w]e adhere to the view that a person is ‘seized’ only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained[,]” id.
Terry Stop – Basis – Anonymous Tip, Generally
State v. Eugene Patton, 2006 WI App 235
For Patton: Daniel R. Clausz
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to detain on the basis of an anonymous tip, where the suspects not only matched the description of the anonymously-reported armed robbery, but also engaged in potentially suspicious behavior in response to police presence.
Holding:
¶21 Thus, the instant case has more than J.L.
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Evasion and Flight”
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:
¶73 Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”
Stop – Duration – Traffic Offense – Prolonged by Seeking Consent to Search
State v. Calvin R. Kolk, 2006 WI App 261
For Kolk: Michael Zell
Issue/Holding: The (lawful) traffic stop’s purpose concluded when the officer returned Kolk’s license and registration and issued his warning; however, the officer had not released Kolk from the temporary detention caused by the traffic stop when he next asked for consent to search the car and as a result Kolk’s ensuing consent was tainted,
§ 940.10(1), Homicide by Negligent Operation of Vehicle — Elements
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶19 Wisconsin Stat. § 940.10(1) provides that a person who “causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony.” The term “negligent” as used in § 940.10 requires proof of “criminal negligence.” See Wis.
§ 940.10(1), Homicide by Negligent Operation of Vehicle — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶34 In sum, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for jurors to reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Schutte’s conduct prior to the collision was criminally negligent within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 939.25 and 940.10. The State’s evidence established not only that Schutte’s car crossed the highway centerline,
§ 940.10(1), Homicide by Negligent Operation of Vehicle — Jury Instructions — Elements
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court invaded the jury’s province when it instructed that the court of appeals had held in State v. Johannes, 229 Wis. 2d 215, 598 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999) that a criminally negligent act had occurred when a car drove across the centerline and that unanimous agreement was unnecessary as to why that act occurred.
§ 940.31(1)(b), Kidnapping – Elements & Mitigation
State v. Reinier A. Ravesteijn, 2006 WI App 250
For Ravesteijn: Rudolph L. Oldeschulte
Issue/Holding: Kidnapping is mitigated from a Class B to Class C felony if the victim is released without permanent physical injury prior to the first witness’s testimony, ¶17. When accepting a guilty plea to Class B kidnapping the court must ascertain a factual basis for excluding the Class C offense, at least where there is some evidence in the record to support it,
§ 940.225(2)(h), Sexual Assault by Correctional Staff Member – Courthouse Bailiff not “Correctional Staff”
State v. Delano L. Terrell, 2006 WI App 166
For Terrell: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Christopher M. Eippert
Issue: Whether a sheriff’s deputy assigned to work as a court bailiff is a “correctional staff member” so as to come within § 940.225(2)(h).
Holding: A “correctional staff member” is defined as an individual who works at a correctional institution, § 940.225(5)(ad). Terrell was a deputy assigned to work as a courthouse bailiff—a courthouse isn’t a correctional institution,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.