On Point

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The specifically prohibited “purpose” of sexual contact (i.e., sexual degradation, humiliation, arousal, or gratification) is not listed in § 948.02(2), but is nonetheless defined in § 948.01(5) as an element. ¶9 and id., n. 4, following State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶50, 232 Wis.

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. Schaefer claims that by allowing conviction for possession of child pornography when a defendant “reasonably should know” that the child depicted is under eighteen years of age, Wis. Stat. § 948.12 omits a scienter requirement for the offense. He contends that in expressing the intent element regarding the minority of the depicted child in the pornographic materials as “knows or reasonably should know,”

State v. James F. Brienzo, 2003 WI App 203, PFR filed 10/10/03
For Brienzo: Jerome F. Buting

Issue/Holding: Prosecution for attempted sexual assault of a child initiated over the Internet isn’t barred by the first amendment. ¶¶23-24, applying State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287 (permitting prosecution for enticement). Same re: attempted enticement, ¶2:

We conclude that pursuant to State v.

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Individual pornographic photos, all found on the same storage disk, support individual charges, it being “reasonable to assume that the existence of multiple files on the Zip disk demonstrates that Schaefer made a new decision to download a particular image file.9 Therefore, each image file ‘represent[s] a new volitional departure,’ and the charges against Schaefer are different in fact.” ¶50. 

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: The police had probable cause to arrest Kutz for involvement in his wife’s disappearance where: there was reason to believe that she had suffered serious harm given that she hadn’t returned to her mother’s house as expected, her family had unsuccessfully looked for her, and it was unlike her not to notify her family of a change in plans,

State v. Cara A. Erickson, 2003 WI App 43

Issue/Holding: The following facts established probable cause to arrest, hence to take a warrantless blood draw, for OWI:

¶15. In this case, the officer knew the following information when he ordered the blood draw. At about 5:40 a.m. on August 27, 2000, less than two hours prior to the blood draw, Erickson crashed her pickup truck into a vehicle with sufficient force to set the vehicle on fire.

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶16. To determine if probable cause exists, the court must consider whether “the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge at the time of the arrest would lead a reasonable police officer to believe … that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant.” 

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds (for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590)
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue1: Whether the search of Knapp’s bedroom was properly consented to by his brother (George),

State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie

Issue/Holding: Although warrantless automobile searches aren’t presumptively unreasonable, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement is inapplicable in the absence of probable cause to search the automobile. ¶18.

State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150
For Larson: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Exigent circumstances weren’t present to justify police entry of a residence to arrest a suspected drunk driver, Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) controlling. ¶¶17-22.