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.
Search Warrants – ProbableCause – Child Molestation – Computer
State v. Jack P. Lindgren, 2004 WI App 159, PFR filed 8/20/04
For Lindgren: Stephen M. Compton
Issue/Holding: Search warrant application was supported by probable cause to search the defendant’s home and his computer, based on allegation of 15-year-old victim, that defendant had taken photographs of her posing nude, and had touched her vaginal area and admission of defendant that he had taken nude photos of her;
WESCL, §§ 968.31(2)(b) and (c) – Intent to Commit Injurious Act
State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed, 2005 WI 74
Issue/Holding: The WESCL bars interception of a communication where the intent is to commit an “injurious act,” a showing that Maloney can’t make:
¶16. Generally, intent presents a question of fact that we are not allowed to resolve. See, e.g., State v. Lossman, 118 Wis.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Test – Failure to Yield to Show of Authority
State v. Jeffrey P. Powers, 2004 WI App 143
For Powers: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶8. Before addressing Powers’ arguments, we will clarify when a seizure occurs. The trial court held that Powers was seized when Bethia activated his emergency lights. That is not the law in Wisconsin. In State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, ¶33, 243 Wis.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Citizen Informant, Generally
State v. Jeffrey P. Powers, 2004 WI App 143
For Powers: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶9. Powers attacks the tip provided by the clerk at Osco; he contends that Bethia could not give it any credence. We begin by restating the obvious: when a caller provides his or her name, the tip is not anonymous; it is a tip from a citizen informant. See Sisk,
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Drunk Driving
State v. Jeffrey P. Powers, 2004 WI App 143
For Powers: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.
Issue/Holding:
¶10. Powers insists that the clerk’s tip is unreliable because the clerk did not observe Powers drive his truck “in a manner consistent with someone who was under the influence of an intoxicant.” We conclude that the tip was reliable for several reasons.
¶11. First, the tip was based on first-hand observations.
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop
State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler
Issue/Holding:
¶6. Kennedy had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Viewed in isolation, some of what she observed was lawful behavior. It is lawful for a car to be on the roadway at 1:30 a.m. It is lawful for a car to be stopped at an angle within its lane of travel.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Anonymous Tip
State v. Tabitha A. Sherry, 2004 WI App 207, PFR filed 11/19/04
For Sherry: Craig R. Day
Issue: Whether an anonymous tip – to “Crime Stoppers,” predicting that a particularly described car with a specified license plate would be transporting a large amount of marijuana between neighboring towns – contained sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion for a stop of the car.
Holding:
¶6.
Reasonable Suspicion — Stop — Duration — Traffic Offense — Questioning Passenger Following Lawful Stop
State v. Donavan W. Malone, 2004 WI 108, on certification
For Malone: John A. Cabranes
Issue: Whether, during a routine traffic stop, the officer may request passengers to get out of the vehicle and question them on matters reasonably related to the nature of the stop.
Holding: Because lawfulness of the stop of the car in which Malone was riding was undisputed, the applicable framework of analysis is found in State v.
Conspiracy, § 939.31 – Unit of Prosecution (Multiple Counts for Multiple Acts)
State v. Edward Leon Jackson, 2004 WI App 190, PFR filed 10/15/04
For Jackson: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶2 In 1996, Jackson admitted to his role in a plan to fire bomb a Milwaukee police officer’s home. Jackson and two other men conspired to fire bomb the house, enabling two others to shoot people fleeing from the building.
§ 940.03, Felony-Murder (1999-2000) — Stand-Alone, Unclassified Crime Not Penalty Enhancer
State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176
For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The felony murder statute, § 940.03 (1999-2000), contains characteristics suggestive of both penalty enhancers (it adds a specified term to the maximum penalty applicable to the underlying crime), ¶15, and also substantive offenses (it is located in a chapter that defines substantive offenses; and it incorporates the elements of offenses located elsewhere),
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.